WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

On his return to Rome in the month of June, 1713, he resumed his astronomical and antiquarian pursuits. When in France he conceived the idea of tracing a meridian line through Italy, from sea to sea, in imitation of that of Cassini through the middle of France. He accordingly began his operations, and pursued the object at his own expence, ‘ for eight years, but other plans and employments occurring, he never completed the design. The papal favours, however, were still conferred on him, purely as a man of science. Innocent XIII. the successor of Clement XI. appointed him referendary of the pontifical signatures, and domestic prelate, and in the council held at Home in 1725, he filled the office of first historiographer. Next year, his love for antiquities was highly gratified, although at the same time checked by an accident which had serious consequences. Tnere was discovered near Rome on the Appian way, a magnificent marble subterraneous building of three large halls, whose walls consisted of a great number of little cells like those of our modern pidgeon -houses. Most of these cells contained, each, four cinerary urns, accompanied with inscriptions of the name and office of the person whose ashes they contained, who were all slaves or freed-men and women of the household of Augustus, especially that of Livk. There were also in this place some exquisite specimens of mosaic ornaments. Biauchini’s joy on this discovery may be easily appreciated by genuine antiquaries; but one unfortunate day, while he was examining one of the chambers or halls, and preparing to make a drawing, the ground on which he stood gave way, and although his fall was broken by some earth which had been dug, one of his thighs received such a serious injury, that he was lame for the remainde’r of his iif and although he found some relief at the baths of Vignona near Sienna, where he went the following year, his health was never completely re-established.

His works were numerous: the following list of the principal is arranged, rather according to the connexion of the subjects, than the chronological order, which in general it is convenient to preserve. 1. Three memoirs in the “Acta eruditorum,” of Leipsic, for 1685 and 1686, on a comet observed at Rome in 1684; on Cassini’s method of observing the parallaxes and distances of the planets, and on a total eclipse of the moon at Rome, Dec. 10, 1685. 2. A memoir on the comet seen at Rome in April 1702, with other astronomical observations inserted in the “Memoirs of the academy of Paris,” 1702, 1766, and 1708. All the preceding, if we mistake not, are in Latin. 3. “Relazione della Hnea meridiana orizzontale e della ellissi polarefabbricata in Roma l'anno 1702,” without his name in the Journal “de‘ Letterati d’ltalia,” vol. IV. 4. “Epistola de eclipsi soils die Maii, 1724,” Rome, 1724. 5. “Hesperi et Phosphori nova phenomena, sive observationes circa planetam Veneris,” Rome, 1728, fol. 6. “Fr. Bianchini astronomicæ et geographicæ observationes selectæ ex ejus autographis, &c. cura et studio Eustachii Manfredi,” Verona, 1737, fol. 7. “De emblemate, nomine atque instituto Alethophilorum, dissertatio publice habita in eorundem academia,” Verona, 1687. 8. “Istoria universale provata con monument! e figurata con simboli degli antichi,” Rome, 1697, 4to. This curious volume, the plates of which were engraven by himself, and from his own designs, was to have been followed by several others, completing the series of ancient history, but this proceeds no farther than the ruin of the Assyrian empire. He will perhaps be thought to deal in paradox, in asserting here that the Iliad is no more than a real history under the form of an allegory, each of Homer’s heroes or deities being a country or a king. 9. “De Kalendario et Cyclo Ciesaris ac de Paschali canone S. Hippolyti martyris, dissertationes dusc,” Rome, 1703, 1704, fol. This also contains an account of the gnomon he constructed, and the pope’s medal struck on that occasion. 10. Two papers explanatory of ancient sculptures, inserted in the “Memorie concernenti la citta d'Urbino,” Rome, 1724, fol. 11. “Camera et iscrizioni sepolcrali, &c.” the history of the discoveries he made in the sepulchral building before mentioned, Rome, 1727, fol. 12. “Del palazzo de' Cesari, opera postuma,” Verona, 1738, published by his nephew who had accompanied it with a Latin translation. 13. “Dissertatio posthuma de tribus generibus instrumentorum musicse veterum orgatiicse,” Rome, 1742, 4to. 14. An edieion of Anastasius Bibliothecarius’ history of the Popes, Rome, 1718, 1723, and 1728, 3 vols, fol. The fourth was added by his nephew. 15. “Opuscula varia,” Rome, 1754, 2 vols. 4to. To these may be added his Italian poems in the collection of those of the “Academici concordi,” of Ravenna, published at Bologna, 1687, )2mo. and many scientific letters, disertations, &c. in the Paris “History of the Academy of the Sciences,” for the years 1704, 1706—8, 1713, and 1718.

, nephew of the preceding, priest of the oratory of St. Philip de Neri, was also a learned antiquary. He was born at Verona Sept. 9, 1704, the son of John Baptist, brother to Francis Bianchini, and was educated under the eye of his uncle in the college of Montefiascone. Before 1725, he was promoted to a canonry in the cathedral, and a prebendal stall in St. Luke, and was soon after appointed librarian to the chapter: but in 1732 he resigned that and his benefices, and entered into the congregation of the oratory at Rome, where he divided his time between the pious duties of that order, and his literary researches, particularly in what related to history and ecclesiastical antiquities. His first publication was, 1. The fourth and concluding volume of his uncle’s edition of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Rome, 1735, fol. 2. “Viridiciae canonicarum Scripturarum vulgatse Latinoe editionis,” Rome, 1740, fol. This volume, the only one published, was to have been followed by six others, the plan of which is sketched in the preface, which, with the preliminary dissertations, contains the history of all the different books of the bible, the manuscript copies in various libraries, the translations, &c. 3. “Evangeliarum quadruplex Latinse versionis antiquoe, seu veteris Italicte, nunc primum in lucem editum ex codd. Mss. aureis, argenteis, &c. aliisque plusquam millenariae antiquitatis,” Rome, 1749, fol. This may be considered as a part of the preceding. 4. “Demonstratio historiae ecclesiasticse quadripartitae monumentis ad fidem temporum et gestorum,” ibid, 1752, fol. A second volume was afterwards published of this elegant collection of fragments of antiquity, inscriptions, medals, vases, &c. found in the different churches, cemeteries, and museums of Rome, or elsewhere, beautifully engraven, and accompanied with explanations and chronological tables. It extends, however, no farther than the first two centuries of the Christian iera. 5. “Delle porte e mura di Roma, con illustrazioni,” ibid. 1747, 4to. 6. “Parere sopra la cagione della morte della sig. contessa Cornelia Zangari, esposto in una lettera,” Verona, 1731, and an improved edition, Rome, 1743, 8vo. This curious dissertation relates to a lady of rank who was found in her room reduced to ashes, except her head, legs, and one of her fingers. As this could not be ascribed to external fire, the room being no wise damaged, it excited much attention, and gave rise to a variety of opinions. Bianchini maintains in this tract, that it was the effect of an internal and spontaneous fire occasioned by the excessive use of camphorated brandy, to which the lady had been much addicted. The time of Bianchini’s death is not mentioned.

, a celebrated Italian philosopher and physician, was born at Bologna, Sept. 30, 1717. After having studied physic with great diligence and success, he was in his nineteenth year appointed medical assistant in one of the hospitals, and after four years, was, in 1742, admitted to the degree of doctor. In 1743 and 1744 he published a valuable translation into Italian of Winslow’s Anatomy, 6 vols. 8vo. In the last mentioned year, his reputation induced the landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, prince and bishop of Augsburgh, to give him an invitation to reside with him, which Bianconi accepted, and remained there for six years. During this time he published “Due lettere di Fisica,” &c. Venice, 1746, 4to, addressed to the celebrated marquis MafFei, and wrote in French an “Essay on Electricity,” addressed to another learned friend, count Algarotti. He also began, in French, “Journal des nouveautes litteraires d' Italic,” printed at Leipsie, but with Amsterdam on the title, 1748, 1749, 8vo, which he continued to the end of a third volume. In 1730, he went to the court of Dresden, with a strong recommendation from pope Benedict XIV. to Augustus III. king of Poland, who received him into his confidence, and appointed him his aulic counsellor, and in 1760 sent him to France on a political affair of considerable delicacy, which he transacted with skill and satisfaction to his employer. In 1764, his majesty appointed him his resident minister at the court of Rome, where he felt his literary taste revive with its usual keenness, and was a contributor to various literary Journals. That of the “Effemeridi letterarie di Roma” owed its rise principally to him, and for sometime, its fame to his contributions. It was in this he wrote his eloges on Lupacchini, Piranesi, and Mengs, which last was published separately, with additions, in 1780. In his twelve Italian letters on the history of Cornelius Celsus, printed at Rome in 1779, he restores that celebrated physician to the age of Augustus, contrary to the common opinion, and to that of Tirasboschi (to whom they were addressed), who places him in what is called the silver age. He was projecting a magnificent edition of Celsus, a life of Petrarch, and some other literary undertakings, when he died suddenly at Perugia, Jan. 1, 1781, universally regretted. He left ready for the press, a work in Italian and French, on the circus of Caracalla, which was magnificently printed at Rome in 1790, with nineteen beautiful engravings.

When Halyattes laid siege to Priene, Bias, who wasthen chief magistrate, made a vigorous resistance for a long time, and when, owing to a scarcity of provisions, the city was in danger of being surrendered, Bias caused two beautiful mules to be fattened, and to be driven towards the enemy’s camp, as if they had escaped from the inhabitants of Priene. Halyattes, seeing these animals in so good plight, was afraid the town was in no danger of starving, but, in order to be certain, contrived to send a spy into the city. Bias, suspecting his design, caused great heaps of sand to be covered with wheat, and the messenger having reported this abundance, Halyattes made an alliance with the inhabitants of Priene, and left them in peace.

Bias is said to have composed above two thousand verses, containing prudential maxims, many of which may be found in Stanley, and other writers on the lives of the philosophers. The following have been selected by Brucker “It is a proof of a weak and disordered mind to desire impossibilities. The greatest infelicity is, not to be able to endure misfortunes patiently. Great minds alone can support a sudden reverse of fortune. The most pleasant state is, to be always gaining. Be not unmindful of the miseries of others. II you are handsome, do handsome things if deformed, supply the defects of nature by your virtues. Be slow in undertaking, but resolute in executing. Praise hot a worthless man for the sake of his wealth. Whatever good you do, ascribe it to the gods. Lay in wisdom as the store for your journey from youth to old age, for it is the most certain possession. Many men are dishonest; therefore love your friend with caution, for he may hereafter become your enemy.” This last, however, would have better become a Rochefoucault, or a Chesterfield. Bias happened to be at Priene, when it was taken and sacked, and when asked, why he did not, like the rest, think of saving something, answered, “So I do, for I carry my all with me.” The action by which his days were terminated was no less illustrious than those of h s former life. He caused himself to be carried into the senate, where he zealously defended the interest of one of his friends, but being now very old, it fatigued him much. He leaned his head on the breast of one of his daughter’s sons, who had accompanied him. When the orator, who pleaded for his opponent, had finished his discourse, the judges pronounced in favour of Bias, who immediately expired in the arms of his grandson.

, painter and architect, was born at Boulogne in 1657. He studied the elements of his art under Cignani, a distinguished artist, and when this master produced his disciple to the world, his talents for architecture, for theatrical decorations, and for perspective, obtained him a good reception. The duke of Parma and the emperor gave him the title of their first painter, and loaded him with favours. Several magnificent edifices were raised after his plans. His pieces of perspective are full of taste, but there have not been wanting som critics who have censured him for having a pencil more fantastic than natural and just. He died blind in 1743, leaving two books of architecture and sons worthy of their father. It is probable that to one of them (J. Galli Bibbiena) the public is indebted for the “History of the amours of Valeria and the noble Venetian Barbarigo,” translated into French, Lausanne and Geneva, 1751. He had also a brother, an architectural painter of considerable fame.

, a very celebrated French physician, and whose labours have greatly promoted the study of physiology, was born Nov. 11, 1771, at Thoirette. His father was also a physician, and had probably initiated him in medical knowledge, which he studied at Lyons, where Petit, then surgeon of the Hotel-Dieu in that city, under whom he was taught anatomy and surgery, had such an opinion of his talents, that he made him his assistant, although then only in his twentieth year. When Lyons was besieged in 1793, he made his escape, and arrived at Paris about the end of that year. There, without any recommendations from friends, he resumed his studies and became one of the pupils of the celebrated Dussault, who discovering his uncommon talents, invited him to his house, treated him as his son, and found in him a most able assistant. Of this generous protector, however, he was deprived by death in 1795, and became in his turn the support of Dussault’s widow and children. He first completed the fourth volume of Dussault’s “Journal de Chirurgie.” In 1797 he published his “CEuvres chirurgicales,” 2 vols. 8vo. In the same year he hegan to give lectures on anatomy and operative surgery, to which, in 1798, he added a course of physiology, v.hich produced his “Traite des Membranes,” 1800, 8vo, and “Recherches physiologiques sur la vie et sur la mort,” 1800, 8vo, in both which he advances some of those original opinions which attracted the attention of the faculty both at home and abroad, and paved the way for the higher fame he acquired by his “Anatomic generale appliquee a la physiologic et a la medicine,” Paris, 1801, 4 vols. 8vo, one of the ablest works n the subject which France has produced. The year preceding, although only twenty-eight years old, he was appointed physician to the Hotel Dieu, and had begun a nevr treatise on descriptive anatomy, when the world was deprived of his labours, by a premature death, the consequence of a putrid fever, July 22, 1802. He was deeply regretted for his talents and virtues.

, a noted Socinian writer, was born in 1615, at Wotton-under-Edge, in Gloucestershire. He was educated at the free-school in that town and, being a promising youth, was noticed by George lord Berkeley, who made him an allowance of 10l. a year. While at this school, he translated Virgil’s eclogues, and the two first satires of Juvenal, into English verse, both which were printed at London in 1634, in 8vo. In 1634 he was sent to Oxford, and entered at Magdalen-hall. June 23, 1683, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and soon after was invited to be master of the school of his native place, but declined it. May 20, 1691, he took his degree of master of arts; and the magistrates of Gloucester having chosen him master of the free-school of St. Mary de Crypt in that city, he went and settled there, and was much esteemed for his diligence. Falling, however, into some opinions concerning the Trinity, different from those commonly received, and having expressed his thoughts with too much freedom, he was accused of heresy: and being summoned before the magistrates, he exhibited in writing a confession, which not being thought satisfactory, he was obliged to make another more explicit than the former. When ha had fully considered this doctrine, he comprised it in twelve arguments drawn, as he pretended, froai the Scripture wherein the commonly-received opinion, touching the deity of the Holy Spirit, is attempted to be refuted . An acquaintance who had a copy of them, having shewed them, to the magistrates of Gloucester, and to the parliament committee then residing there, he was committed, Dec. 2, 1645, to the common gaol, till the parliament should take cognizance of the matter. However, an eminent person in Gloucester procured his enlargement, by giving security for his appearance when the parliament should send for him. June 1616, archbishop Usher, passing through Gloucester in his way to London, had a conference with our author, and endeavoured, but in vain, to convince him of his errors. Six months after he had been set at liberty he was summoned to appear at Westminster, and the parliament appointed a committee to examine him before whom he freely confessed, that he did not acknowledge the commonly-received notion of the divinity of the Holy Ghost, but, however, was ready to hear what could be opposed to him, and, if he could not make out his opinion to be true, honestly to own his error. But being wearied with tedious and expensive delays, he wrote a letter to sir Henry Vane, a member of the committee, requesting him either to procure his discharge, or to make a report of his case to the house of commons. The result of this was, his being committed to the custody of one of their officers, which restraint continued the five years following. He was at length referred to the assembly of divines then sitting at Westminster, before whom he often appeared, and gave them in writing his twelve arguments, which were published the same year. Upon their publication, he was summoned to appear at the bar of the house of commons; where being asked, “Whether he owned this treatise, and the opinions therein” he answered in the affirmative. Upon which he was committed to prison, and the house ordered, Sept. 6, 1747, that the book should be called in and burnt by the hangman, and the author be examined by the committee of plundered ministers. But Mr. Biddle drew a greater storm upon himself by two tracts he published in 1648, “A confession of faith touching the Holy Trinity according to the Scripture” and “The testimonies of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Novatianusy Theophilus, Origen, also of Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Hilary, and Brightman, concerning that one God, and the persons of the Holy Trinity, together with observations on the same.” As soon as they were published, the assembly of divines solicited the parliament, and procured an ordinance, inflicting death upon those that held opinions contrary to the received doctrine about the Trinity, and severe penalties upon those who differed in lesser matters. Biddle, however, escaped by a dissension in the parliament, part of which was joined by the army; many of whom, both officers and soldiers, being liable to the severities of the ordinance above-mentioned, it therefore from that time lay unregarded for several years. Biddle had now more liberty allowed him by his keepers who suffered him, upon security given, to go into Staffordshire, where he lived some time with a justice of peace, who entertained him with great hospitality, and at his death left him a legacy. Serjeant John Bradshaw, president of the council of state, having got intelligence of this indulgence granted him, caused him to be recalled, and more strictly confined. In this confinement he spent his whole substance, and was reduced to great indigence, till he was employed by Roger Daniel of London, to correct an impression of the Septuagint Bible, which that printer was about to publish and this gained him for some time a comfortable subsistence.

In 1654 the parliament published a general act of oblivion, when Biddle was restored to his liberty. This he improved among those friends he had gained in London, in meeting together every Sunday for expounding the Scripture, and discoursing thereupon; by which means his opinions concerning the unity of God, Christ his only son, and his holy spirit, were so propagated, that the presbyterian ministers became highly offended. The same year he published his “Twofold scripture catechism,” which was ably answered by Dr. Owen in his “Vindicise Evangelicae,” Oxford, 1655; but a copy coming into the hands of some of the members of Cromwell’s parliament, meeting Sept. 3, 1654, a complaint was made against it in the house of commons. Upon this, the author being brought to the bar, and asked “Whether he wrote that book?” answered by asking, “Whether it seemed reasonable, that one brought before a judgment seat as a criminal, should accuse himself?” After some debates and resolutions, he was, Dec. 13, committed close prisoner to the Gatehouse. A bill likewise was ordered to be brought in for punishing him but, after about six months imprisonment, he obtained his liberty at the court of king’s bench, by due course of law. About a year after, another no less formidable danger overtook him, by his engaging in a dispute with one Griffin, an anabaptist teacher. Many of Griffin’s congregation having embraced Biddle' s opinions concerning the Trinity, he thought the best way to stop the spreading of such errors would be openly to confute his tenets. For this purpose he challenges Biddle to a public disputation at his meeting in the Stone chapel in St. Paul’s cathedral, on this question, “Whether Jesus Christ be the most high, or almighty God?” Biddle would have declined the dispute, but was obliged to accept of it and the two antagonists having met amidst a ifumerous audience, Griffin repeats the question, asking “if any man there did deny that Christ was God most high” to which Biddle resolutely answered, “I do deny it” and by this open profession gave his adversaries the opportunity of a positive and clear accusation, which they soon laid hold of. But Griffin being baffled, the disputation was deferred till another day, when Biddle was to take his turn of proving the negative of the question. Meanwhile, Griffin and his party, not thinking themselves a match for our author, accused him of fresh blasphemies, and procured an order from the protector to apprehend him, July the 3d (being the day before the intended second disputation), and to commit him to the Compter. He was afterwards sent to Newgate, and ordered to be tried for his life the next sessions, on the ordinance against blasphemy. However, the protector not chusing to have him either condemned or absolved, took him out of the hands of the law, and detained him in prison; till at length, being wearied with receiving petitions for and against him, he banished him to St. Mary’s castle, in the isle of Scilly y where he was sent Oct. 1655. During this exile, he employed himself in studying several intricate matters, particularly the Revelation of St. John, and after his return to London, published an essay towards explaining it. In 1658, the protector, through the intercession of many friends, suffered a writ of habeas corpus to be granted out of the king’s bench, whereby the prisoner was brought back, and, nothing being laid to his charge, was set at liberty. Upon his return to London, he became pastor of an independent meeting but did not continue long in town for, Cromwell dying Sept. 3, 1658, his son Richard called a parliament, consisting chiefly of presbyterians, whom, of all men, Biddle most dreaded he therefore retired privately into the country. This parliament being soon dissolved, he returned to his former employment till the restoration of king Charles the Second, when the liberty of dissenters was taken away, and their meetings punished as seditious. Biddle then restrained himself from public to more private assemblies, but, June 1, 1662, he was seized in his lodging, where he and some few of his friends had met for divine worship, and was, with them, carried before a justice of peace, who committed them all to prison, where they lay till the recorder took security for their answering to the charge brought against them at the next session. But the court not being then able to find a statute whereon to form, any criminal indictment, they were referred to the session following, and proceeded against at common law; each of the hearers was fined 20l. Biddle, 100l., and to lie in prison till paid. By his confinement, however, he contracted a disease which put an end to his life, Sept. 22, 1662, in the 47th year of his age. He was buried in the cemetery near Old Bethlem, in Moorfields and a monument was erected over his grave, with an inscription. His life was published in Latin at London, 1682, by Mr. Farrington, of the Inner Temple, who gives him a high character for piety and morals, and by the Rev. Joshua Toulmin, in 1789, 8vo, who styles him the Father of the English Unitarians.

, a famous anatomical writer, was born at Amsterdam March 12, 1649. After he had passed through his academical studies, he applied himself to physic and anatomy, and took his degree of M. D. He soon acquired considerable practice; in 1688 was made professor of anatomy at the Hague, which he quitted in 1694 for the professorship of anatomy and chirurgery at Leyden; and afterwards William III. of England appointed him his physician, which he accepted on condition of holding his professorship. The king died in 1702, and Bidloo returned to his former employments, in which he had been interrupted by his constant attendance upon that prince. He died at Ley den, April 1713, being 64 years of age. His chief work was his “Anatomia humani corporis,” in 105 plates drawn by Lairesse, Amst. 1685, fol. very beautiful, but not entirely correct, a circumstance which being pointed out by the celebrated Ruysch, drew from Bidloo a reply not very temperate, entitled “Vindiciae quorundam Delineationum Anatomicarum contra ineptasAnimadversionesF. Ruyschii, &c.” 1697,4to. Bidloo also published 1. “A letter to Anthony Leeuvvenhoek concerning the animals which are sometimes found in the liver of sheep or some other animals.” This was published in Low Dutch, Delft, 1698, 4to. 2. “Gulielmus Cowper criminis Literarii citatus coram tribunali nobiliss. ampliss. Societatis Britanno-Regiae,” Leyden, 1700, 4to, pagg. 4. This piece contains a very severe accusation against Mr. Cowper, a surgeon of London, and fellow of the royal society. Dr. Bidloo being informed that Mr. Cowper was engaged in translating his anatomy into English, had a conversation with him while he was at London, and offered him that in case he had such a design, he would communicate several additions and remarks, which he had made since the publication of that work. Mr. Cowper assured him, that he had no intention of that kind, as he did not understand Latin sufficiently to execute such a task. In the mean while he procured three hundred copies of the cuts of Dr. Bidloo’s book to be bought for him in Holland, upon which he caused the references to be written very artfully, in order to change, and add to, and frequently to spoil the doctor’s explication of the cuts. He had, likewise, an English title-page pasted upon the Latin one, in which, instead of the real author’s name his own was inserted, and he placed his own picture in the room of Dr. Bidloo’s. And although he occasionally mentioned our author in the preface, and added a few cuts at the end, Bidloo affirms, that the preface was inserted afterwards, when Mr. Cowper found that this piece of plagiarism would be resented. He observes, also, that the figures in the appendix were not drawn from the life, since there was no proportion observed in them, as is evident to those who understand the first principles of anatomy. Mr. Cowper wrote an answer to this piece, wherein he charged Dr. Bidloo likewise with plagiarism, and several mistakes, which he had committed; and this affair gave occasion to his publishing afterwards his great work upon the muscles. 3. “Exercitationum Anatomico-Chirurgicarum Decades dua”,“Leyden, 1708, 4to. 4. He published likewise a small piece upon the disease of which king William III. of England died. 5.” Letters of the Apostles who were martyred,“Amsterdam, 1698, 4to, in Low Dutch verse, of which, as well as of Latin, he was very fond, and was thought to have succeeded. He supposes jn this book, that the apostles wrote these letters before they suffered, martyrdom, and addressed them to their disciples, in order to inform them of their last desires, and to instruct them in what manner they ought to act after themselves were removed from this world. There was published at Leyden, 1719, a miscellaneous collection of our author’s poems in Low Dutch. His brother, Lambert Bidloo, an apothecary at Amsterdam, was the author of some Dutch poetry, and of a work” De re herbaria,“printed at the end of the” Catalogue of the Garden of Amsterdam," by Commelin, Leyden, 1709, 12mo. Lambert’s son, Nicholas, became first physician to the Czar Peter I., and inspector of the hospital of St. Petersburgh.

Another de Bie (Jacob or James), who was born at Antwerp, in 1581, was an eminent engraver of antiquities, coins, &c. and published, 1. “Imperatorum Roman. Numismata,” from Julius Caesar to Heraclius, Ant. 1615, 4to. 2. “Numismata Graecise,” ibid. foi. 3. “La France Metallique, &c.” Paris, 1636; also the portraits for Mezeray’s history, and other works of a similar kind. His style resembles that of the Collaerts, and he drew correctly, and executed his plates entirely with the graver, in a neat clear determined manner, and upon the whole, his prints may rank with those of the best early Flemish masters.

, was born at Hamburgh March 31, 1717. Jn a journey which he made to Brunswick, he became acquainted with Frederick II. then prince royal, who, on coming to the throne, took him into his service, and sent him, as secretary of legation, with count de Truchses, Prussian ambassador to the court of St. James’s, but discovering that the baron’s talents were not calculated for diplomatic affairs, h, in 1745, appointed him preceptor to prince Augustus Ferdinand his brother; after that, in 1747, curator of the universities, and in 1748 he created him a baron, with the rank of privy-counsellor. The last years of his life he spent in study and retirement at Treban, in the country of Altenburgh, where he died April 5, 1770. He wrote

, and not de la Vigne, as he is generally called by writers who have occasion to name him [for it is thus he gives his own name in his “Roman des Oiseaux”], was born of a noble family of the diocese of Bayeux, about 1428. He was chaplain to king John, and followed that prince into England after the battle of Poletiers. Being at Rochefort in 1459, he began a poem on the chace, entitled “Le Roman des Oiseaux,” which he finished on his return to France. This he did at the command of the king for the instruction of his son Philip duke of Burgundy. The abbé Goujet attributes this poem to Gaston de Foix, from its being printed at the end of the “Miroir de la Chasse” by that prince, but greatly different from the manuscripts. Gaston’s work printed by Trepperel at Paris, fol. without a date, and again in 1520, consists of two parts, the first Gaston’s, and the second by Bigne. Bigne is supposed, from some passages in his work, to have been alive in 1475. The personages in this poem, or romance, are allegorical, and dispute which species of the chace has the pre-eminence, appealing to the king, who, after having advised with his counsellors, wisdom, reason, and truth, (not very usually called in) sends away the disputants perfectly satisfied. The style is easy, and the author’s quaintness will be agreeable to the lovers of early poetry.

, a French writer, was born at Paris Aug. 24, 1589. His father took the care of his education upon himself, and taught him the languages, philosophy, mathematics, civil law, and divinity. Jerome acquired so much knowledge in a very short time, that at ten years of age he published his description of the Holy Land, entitled “Chorographie, ou Description de la TerreSainte,” Paris, 1600, 12mo; and three years after, two other works, which gained him great reputation in France. The first was, “Discours de la ville de Rome, principales antiquitez & singularitez d'icelle,” 1601-, 8vo; the other work is “Traite sommaire de Pelection des papes,” 1605, 8vo, in which piece he gives an account of the different manner of electingthe popes formerly. Henry IV. appointed him page of honour to the dauphin, afterwards Lewis XIII. He wrote also a treatise on the precedency of the kings of France, entitled “De l‘excellence des rois & du royaume de France, traitant de la preseance& des prerogatives des rois des France par dessus tous les antres, & de causes d’icelles.” This book was written in order to confute what Diego Valdes, counsellor of the royal chamber of Granada, had published in favour of the precedency of the kings of Spain, under the title of “De dignitate re gum Hispania?,” Granada, 1602, fol. This he dedicated to the king, who ordered him to continue his researches upon the subject; but the death of this prince interrupted his design, and made him leave the court; whither he was soon recalled at the solicitation of Mr. le Fevre, preceptor to Lewis XIII. and continued there till the death of his friend. In 1613 he published an edition of the Formulae of Marculphus and the year following took a journey to Italy, where he received many marks of esteem from Paul V. Father Paul likewise being pleased w with. his conversation, detained him some time at Venice.

Upon his return from his travels, he applied himself to the practice of the bar with great success. His father procured for him the post of advocate general in the grand council; which office he discharged with such reputation, that the king nominated him some time after counsellor of state, and at last advocate general in the parliament. In 1641 he resolved to confine himself entirely to his business in the council of state, and therefore resigned his place of advocate-general to Mr. Briquet his son -in- law,. The year following he was appointed the king’s librarian. His sonin-law dying in 1645, he was obliged to resume his post of advocate- general, in order to preserve it for his son. He had also a considerable share in the ordinance of the year 1639; and he discharged with great integrity various commissions with which he was intrusted at different times. Queen Anne of Austria, during her regency, sent for him to council upon the most important occasions. He adjusted the differences between Mr. d‘Avaux and Mr. Servien, plenipotentiaries at Minister and he had a share, with M. de Brienne and d’ Emery, in making the treaty of alliance with the states of Holland in 1649. He was appointed, in 1651, to regulate the great affair of the succession of Mantua; and in 1654, to conclude the treaty with the Hans Towns. Mr. Bignon died, aged 66, on the 7th of April, 1656, of an asthma, with which he waa seized the autumn before. In 1757, the abbé Perau published Bignon’s life, two parts, 12mo. His grandson, John Paul Bignon, was librarian to the king, a man of great erudition, and a writer of great powers of invention, if he could compose, as we are told he did, four panegyrics on St. Louis, all different, two of which were pronounced the same day, one at the French academy, and the other at the academy of inscriptions. He wrote also “Vie de Francois Levesque,” 1684, 12mo; and “Les Aventures d‘Abdalla, fils d’Hanif.” 1713, 2 vols. 12mo. often reprinted. He had also a hand in the medallic history of the jreign of Louis XIV. and the Journal des Savans. He warmly patronized Tournefort, who named a plant after him Bignonia. He died May 14, 1743.

, an eminent patron of literature, was born at Rouen in 1626, of an ancient family, and having no inclination to rise in the offices of magistracy, as many of his ancestors had done, nor to enter into the church, he determined to devote his time and fortune to the study and advancement of polite literature. His father, dean of the court of aids in Normandy, left him a library of six thousand volumes, including upwards of five hundred manuscripts, to which he made so many additions, that at his death it was valued at forty thousand franks and that it might not be scattered, he entailed it on his family, with handsome funds for the support and enlargement of it. It was, however, sold in July 1706, and the catalogue, which was printed, is in considerable request among bibliographers. During his life-time this library was the resort of a number of men of letters, who held frequent meetings here, in which Bigot presided. His travels in Holland, England, Germany, and Italy, procured him the acquaintance and correspondence of most of the literati of Europe, who frequently consulted him, and paid great regard to his opinions. His sole passion was to contribute by his wealth and studies to the perfection and illustration of the best Greek and Latin authors, and he employed these advantages with the utmost liberality and modesty. Having discovered in the library at Florence, the Greek text of the “Life of St. Chrysostom by Palladius, he published it at Paris in 1680, 4to, with some other ancient Greek remains, hitherto in manuscript, the whole accompanied with a Latin translation by Ambrose of Camaldoli. To this he added St. Chrysostom’s epistle to Cesarius, but it being discovered that this was an attack on the doctrine of transubstantiation, the licensers refused its being published, and caused the leaves on which it was printed to be cut out. A copy of these leaves, however, having fallen into the hands of Mr. (afterwards archbishop) Wake, was published by him in his” Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the exceptions of M. de Meaux, &c.“Lond. 1686, 4to. In this Wake has given a curious account not only of the suppression of this letter, but of the controversy to which it gave rise in archbishop Cranmer’s time. Du Pin says, that after Bigot’s death, some of his literary correspondence was published but this appears a mistake, if we except a letter of his written, in 1672, to the bishop of Trulle against the abbé de St. Cyran’s book” Le Cas Royal," and printed at Basil in 1690. Menage and Heinsius were among his most intimate friends, and such was his general knowledge and communicative disposition, that he was consulted by every one fond of literary history and anecdote. He died Oct. 18, 1689.

, an eminent German philosopher and statesman, was born at Camstadt in Wirtemberg, Jan. 23, 1693; his father was a Lutheran minister. By a singular hereditary constitution in this family, Biliinger was born with twelve fingers and eleven toes, which, in his case, is said to have been remedied by amputation when he was an infant. From his earliest years, he showed an uncommon capacity for study, joined to a retired and thinking turn of mind. Happening, when studying at Tubingen, to learn mathematics in the works of Wolf, he imbibed likewise a taste for the sceptical philosophy of that writer, and for the system of Leibnitz, which for a time took off his attention from his other studies. When entered on his theological course, he found himself disposed to connect it with his new ideas on philosophy, and with that view wrote a treatise, “De Deo, anima, et mundo,” which procured him considerable fame, and was the cause of his being chosen preacher at the castle of Tubingen, and repeater in the school of divinity. But fancying Tubingen a theatre too contracted, he obtained of one of his friends a supply of money, in 1719, which enabled him to go to Halle to study more particularly under Wolf himself. This, however, did not produce all the good consequences expected. When after two years he returned to Tubingen, the Wolfian philosophy was no longer in favour, his patrons were cold, his lessons deserted; himself unable to propagate his new doctrines, and his promotion in the church was likely to suffer. In this unpleasant state he remained about four years, when, by Wolf’s recommendation, he received an invitation from Peter I. to accept the professorship of logic and metaphysics in the new academy at St. Petersburgh. Thither accordingly he went in 1725, and was received with great respect, and the academical memoirs which he had occasion to publish increased his reputation in no small degree. The academy of sciences of Paris having about that time proposed for solution the famous problem, on the cause of gravity, Bilfinger carried off the prize, which was one thousand crowns. This made his name be known in every part of Europe, and the duke Charles of Wirtemberg having been reminded that he was one of his subjects, immediately recalled him home. The court of Russia, after in vain endeavouring to retain him, granted him a pension of four hundred florins, and two thousand as the reward of a discovery he had made in the art of fortification. He quitted Petersburgh accordingly in 1731, and being re-established at Tubingen, revived the reputation of that school not only by his lectures, but by many salutary changes introduced in the theological class, which he effected without introducing any new opinions. His greatest reputation, however, rests on his improvements in natural philosophy and mathematics, and his talents as an engineer seem to have recommended him to the promotion which the duke Charles Alexander conferred upon him. He had held many conversations with Bilfinger on the subject of fortifications, and wished to attach him to government by appointing him a privy-councillor in 1735, with unlimited credit. For some time he refused a situation which he thought himself not qualified to fill, but when he accepted it, his first care was to acquire the knowledge necessary for a member of administration, endeavouring to procure the most correct information respecting the political relations, constitution, and true interests of the country. By these means, he was enabled very essentially to promote the commerce and agriculture of his country, and in other respects to improve her natural resources, as well as her political connections, and he is still remembered as one of the ablest statesmen of Germany. The system of fortification which he invented is yet known by his name, and is now the chief means of preserving it, as he died unmarried, at Stuttgard, Feb. 18, 1750. He is said to have been warm in his friendships, but somewhat irascible; his whole time during his latter years was occupied in his official engagements, except an hour in the evening, when he received visits, and his only enjoyment, when he could find leisure, was in the cultivation of his garden. To his parents he was particularly affectionate, and gratefully rewarded all those who had assisted him in his dependent state. His principal works are 1. “Disputatio de harmonia praestabilita,” Tubinguen, 1721, 4to. 2. “De harmonia animi et corporis humani maxime prsestabilita commentatio hypothetica,” Francfort, 1723, 8vo. This was inserted among the prohibited books by the court of Rome in 1734. 3. “De origine et permissione Mali, &c.” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 4. “Specimen doctrinae veterum Sinarum moralis et politicae,” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 5. “Dissertatio historico-catoptrica de speculo Archimedis,” Tubingen, 1725, 4to. 6. “Dilucidationes philosophies; de Deo, anima, &c.” before mentioned, ibid. 1725, 4to. 7. “Bilfingeri et Holmanni epistolae de barmonia praestabilita,” 1728, 4to. 8. “Disputatio de natura et legibus studii in theologica Thetici,” ibid. 1731, 4to. 9. “Disputatio de cuku Dei rationali,” ibid. 1731. 10. “Notae breves in Spinosae methodum. explicandi scripturas,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 11. “De mysteriis Christianae fidei generatim spectatis sermo,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 12. “La Citadelle coupee,” Leipsic, 1756, 4to. 13. “Elementa physices,” Leipsic, 1742, 8vo; besides many papers in the memoirs of the Petersburgh academy, of which, as well as of that of Berlin, he was a member.

, a Jesuit, who was born at Compiegne in 1602, and died at Dijon in 1679, aged seventyseven published a great number of mathematical works, of which the “Opus astronomicon,” Paris, 1661, in 4to, is the most known.

, an excellent mathematician, and lord-mayor of London in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was son to Roger Biilingsley of Canterbury. He spent near three years in his studies at the university of Oxford, during which time he contracted an acquaintance with an eminent mathematician, whose name was Whitehead, and who had been an Augustin friar at Oxford, but Biilingsley being removed from the university, and bound apprentice to an haberdasher in London, he afterwards raised himself so considerable a fortune by trade, that he was successively chosen sheriff, alderman, one of the commissioners of the customs for the port of London, and at last lord mayor of that city in 1597, and received the honour of knighthood. He made a great progress in the mathematics, by the assistance of his friend Mr. Whitehead, who being left destitute upon the dissolution of the monasteries in the reign of king Henry VIII. was received by Mr. Biilingsley into his family, and maintained by him in his old age in his house at London and when he died, he gave our author all the mathematical observations, which he had made and collected, with his notes upon Euclid’s Elements, which he had drawn up and digested with prodigious pains. He was one of the original society of antiquaries. Sir Henry Billingsley died very much advanced in years, Nov. 22, 1606, and was interred in the church of St. Catherine Coleman, London. He translated the Elements of Euclid into English, to which he added a great number of explanations, examples, scholia, annotations, and inventions, collected from the best mathematicians both of the former times, and those in which he lived, published under the title of “The Elements of Geometry of the most antient philosopher Euclid of Megara, faithfully translated into the English tongue. Whereunto are added certain scholia, annotations,” &c. London, 1570, fol. Dr. John Dee prefixed to this work a long preface, full of variety of learning relating to the mathematics.

, a learned writer, and bishop, in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in the city of Winchester, being the son of Harman Bilson, the same probably who was fellow of Merton-college in 1536, and derived his descent by his grandmother, or great-grandmother, from the duke of t>avaria. He was educated in Winchester school and in 1565 admitted perpetual fellow of New-college, after he had served two years of probation. October 10, 1566, he took his degree of bachelor, and April 25, 1570, that of master of arts; that of bachelor of divinity, June 24, 1579; and the degree of doctor of divinity on the 24th of January 1580. In his younger years, he was a great lover of, and extremely studious in, poetry, philosophy, and physic. But when he entered into holy orders, and applied himself to the study of divinity, which his genius chiefly led him to, he became a most solid and constant preacher, and one of the most accomplished scholars of his time. The first preferment he had was that of master of Winchester-school he was then made prebendary of Winchester, and afterwards warden of the college there. To this college he did a very important service, about the year 1584, by preserving the revenues of it when they were in danger of being swallowed up by a notorious forgery, of which, however, we have only an obscure account. In 1585, he published his book of “The true difference betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion,” and dedicated it to queen Elizabeth a work, which, although it might answer her immediate purpose, was of fatal tendency to Charles I. few books being more frequently quoted by the mal-contents to justify their resistance to that prince. In 1593, he published a very able defence of episcopacy, entitled, “The perpetuall Government of Christes Church: wherein are handled, the fatherly superioritie which God first established in the patriarkes for the guiding of his Church, and after continued in the tribe of Levi and the Prophetes and lastlie confirmed in the New Testament to the apostles and their successors: as also the points in question at this day, touching the Jewish Synedrion: the true kingdome of Christ: the Apostles’ commission: the laie presbyterie: the distinction of bishops from presbyters, and their succession from the apostles times and hands: the calling and moderating of provinciall synods by primates and metropolitanes the allotting of dioceses, and the popular electing of such as must feede and watch the flock and divers other points concerning the pastoral regiment of the house of God.” On the 20th of April, 15y6, he was elected v confirmed June the llth, and the 13th of the same month consecrated bishop of Worcester and translated in May following to the bishopric of Winchester, and made a privy-counsellor. In 1599, he published “The effect of certaine Sermons touching the full Redemption of Mankind by the death and bloud of Christ Jesus wherein, besides the merite of Christ’s suffering, the manner of his offering, the power of his death, the comfort of his crosse, the glorie of his resurrection, are handled, what paines Christ suffered in his soule on the crosse together with the place and purpose of his descent to hel after death” &c. Lond. 4to. These sermons being preached at Paul’s Cross in Lent 1597, by the encouragement of archbishop Whitgift, greatly alarmed most of the Puritans, because they contradicted some of their tenets, but they are not now thought consonant to the articles of the church of England. The Puritans, however, uniting their forces, and making their observations, sent them to Henry Jacob, a learned puritan, who published them under his own name. The queen being at Farnham-castle, and, to use the bishop’s words, “taking knowledge of the things questioned between him and his opponents, directly commanded him neither to desert the doctrine, nor to let the calling which he bore in the church of God, to be trampled under foot by such unquiet refusers of trueth and authoritie.” Upon this royal command, he wrote a learned treatise, chiefly delivered in sermons, which was published in 1604, under the title of “The survey^of Christ’s sufferings for Man’s Redemption and of his descent to hades or hel for our deliverance,” Lond. fol. He also preached the sermon at Westminster before king James I. and his queen, at their coronation on St. James’s day, July 28, 1603, from Rom. xiii. L. London, 1603, 8vo. In January 1603-4, he was one of the speakers and managers at the Hampton-Court conference, in which he spoke much, and, according to Mr. Fuller, most learnedly, and, in general, was one of the chief maintainers and supports of the church of England. The care of revising, and putting the last hand to, the new translation of the English Bible in king James Ist’s reign, was committed to our author, and to Dr. Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. His last public act, recorded in history, was the being one of the delegates that pronounced and signed the sentence of divorce between Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and the lady Frances Howard, in the year 1613 and his son being knighted soon after upon this very account, as was imagined, the world was so malicious as to give him the title of sir Nullity Bilson. This learned bishop, after having gone through many employments, departed this life on the 18th of June, 1616, and was buried in Westminsterabbey, near the entrance into St. Edmund’s chapel, on the south side of the monument of king Richard II. His character is represented to the utmost advantage by several persons. Sir Anthony Weldon calls him “an excellent civilian, and a very great scholler” Fuller, “a deep and profound scholar, excellently well read in the fathers” Bishop Godwin, “a very grave iman and how great a divine (adds he), if any one knows not, let him consult his learned writings” Sir John Harrington, “I find but foure lines (in bishop Godwin’s book) concerning him and if I should give him his due, in proportion to the rest, I should spend foure leaves. Not that I need make him better known, being one of the most eminent of his ranck, and a man that carried prelature in his very aspect. His rising was meerly by his learning, as true prelates should rise. Sint non modo labe mali sed suspicione carentes, not onely free from the spot, but from the speech of corruption.” He wrote in a more elegant style, and in fuller and betterturned periods, than was usual in the times wherein he lived. It is related of our prelate, that once, when he was preaching a sermon* at St. Paul’s Cross, a sudden panic, occasioned by the folly or caprice of one of the audience, seized the multitude there assembled, who thought that the church was falling on their heads. The good bishop, who sympathized with the people more from pity than from fear, after a sufficient pause, reassumed and went through his sermon with great composure.

At the time of his decease only six of his ten children, two sons and four daughters, were living these, with their widowed mother, were left in very contracted circumstances. Mrs. Bingham was therefore induced to sell the copy-right of her late husband’s writings to the booksellers, who immediately republished the whole of his works in two volumes in folio, without making any alterations whatsoever and though the eldest son undertook the office of correcting the press, he did not insert any of the manuscript additions which his father had prepared as he was then so very young, that he probably had not had an opportunity of examining his father’s books and papers sufficiently to discover that any such preparations for a new edition had been made. Of the four daughters, one married a gentleman of Hampshire the other three died single. The second son will be mentioned in the succeeding article. The widow died in a very advanced age, in bishop Warner’s college for clergymen’s widows, at Bromley, in Kent, in 1755.

Patronized by Mr. Potinger, his grandfather, who very early discovered his promising talents and amiable disposition, he was at 12 years of age sent to the king’s college at Westminster and by his unremitting industry so improved his abilities, that he was elected, before he had reached his 17th year, student of Christ-church in Oxford. Being here valued on account of his literary attainments, and justly beloved for the urbanity of his manners, he was within four years from his matriculation, elected fellow of All Souls’ college, where he had an opportunity of cultivating a sincere and unalterable friendship with many gentlemen of the most distinguished reputation and it has been justly remarked to'-his honour and credit, that he never made an acquaintance by whom he was not highly respected, or formed an intimacy that was not permanent. The late excellent judge, sir William Blackstone, who was his friend and contemporary, and whom he not a little assisted in his “Stemmata Chicheliana,” well knew his worth, and kept up a correspondence with him, with a sincerity and fervour unaltered and undiminished, to the last hour of his life. In 1745-6, when party ran high, and the Pretender had made incursions into England, he served the office of proctor in the university, and conducted himself in those troublesome times with a proper spirit and resolution, as became an upright magistrate and a good man. Being a few years after, on the death of the rev. Christopher Pitt, the excellent translator of Virgil’s Æneid, presented by George Pitt, esq. (the late lord Rivers) to the rectory of Pimpern, Dorset, he married a lady to whom he had been some time engaged, by whom he had three children, a daughter and two sons but his wife, whom he doated on, with the tenderest affection, was, after the death of her youngest child, seized with an illness which terminated in a dropsy, and brought her to the grave in the 36th year of her age. She was buried, in 1756, in the chancel of the parish-church of Pimpern.

His two sons were now entered on the foundation at the college near Winchester, and had both of them made such rapid progress in their education, that they gave him every possible satisfaction. The eldest was the senior scholar at 16 years of age, and was certain of succeeding at the next election to that goal of Wiccamical hope, a fellowship of New college, in Oxford; when, a few days prior to that sera, as he was bathing in the navigable river Itchin, in a place well known to every Winchester boy by the name of The Pot, he was seized with a cramp within two yards of the shore, in the presence of more than 100 expert swimmers, and his unfortunate younger brother, who was close to him at the moment, and sunk beneath the water never to appear again. His lifeless body was not found till half an hour had expired. All arts to re-animate him were tried in vain; and he was buried a few days after in the cloisters of Winchester college, amidst the tears of his afflicted companions.

When the author of the Antiquities of the County of Dorset first offered his labours to the public, Mr. Bingham, who was not ignorant how much care and study had been bestowed in collecting those valuable materials, gave him every assistance in his power. By examining with indefatigable attention the numerous Roman tumuli and causeways that abound in that country, and by a knowledge of many circumstances that had escaped the observation of others, he enriched the collection with a treasure of many curious accounts, and made no small addition to the numerous list of subscribers, by soliciting his friends in behalf of Mr. Hutchins. The author expressed his acknowledgments in many private letters; but Mr. Bingham would never permit him to make known from what hand he received his communications, nor is the name of G. B. once mentioned in the work, except after the marvellous account of Sadler’s prophecy, attested by Cuthbert Bound at the end of the first volume it is added, “this narrative was communicated by the rev. G. Bingham, of Pimpern.” The original paper, signed by C. Bound, which has been long preserved in the family, is now in the possession of the rev. P. Bingham, as are also many observations, corrections, tt additamenta, never yet published.

, a Greek philosopher, who flourished 300 B.C. was born at Borysthenes, a Greek town on the borders of the river of that name, now the Dneiper. Of his family, he is said to have given the following account to king Antigonus, who had heard something of his mean birth, and thinking to embarrass him, demanded his name, his country, his origin, &c. Bion, without being in the least disconcerted, answered, “My father was a freed-man, whose employment was to sell salt-fish. He had been a Scythian, born on the banks of the Borysthenes. He got acquainted with my mother in a place of bad fame, and there the couple celebrated their hopeful marriage. My father afterwards committed some crime, with the precise nature of which I am unacquainted; and for this, he, his wife, and his children, were exposed to sale. I was then a sprightly boy. An orator purchased me and on his death, bequeathed to me all his effects. I instantly tore his will, threw it into the fire, and went to Athens, where I applied to the study of philosophy.” In this city he first attached himself to Crates, and became a cynic, and then embraced the opinions of Theodoras, the atheist, and Theophrastus, and at last became a philosopher in his own way, without belonging to any sect. The name of philosopher, however, seems ill applied to him. He uttered, indeed, some wise and moral sayings, but his general conduct was that of extreme profligacy. He died at Chalcis, and during his last illness, is said to have repented of his libertinism, for which he endeavoured to atone by superstitious observances. He wrote copiously on the subject of morals, and Stobeus has preserved a few fragments.

, an Italian author of great authority in the science of which he may be said to have been professor, that which the Italians call Scienza cavalleresca, which embraces all questions relative to nobility, the profession of arms, the ancient customs of chivalry, and the laws of honour. He was born in 1562, of a noble Milanese family, and lived and wrote as late as the year 1637, but beyond that his history cannot be traced. Being the eldest of six brothers, he assumed, in his writings, the title of signor Metono and Siciano, two fiefs belonging to his family in the territory of Pavia. From Crescenzi, a contemporary, and author of a “treatise on the nobility of Italy,” we learn that Birago was arbitrator of all chivalrous disputes in Lombardy and that in all parts of Italy he was consulted as an oracle, and his opinions were decisive, being considered as a gentleman who united honourable spirit with high blood. He wrote several works on the subject, enumerated by Ginguene“, the principal of which were collected and published in one vol. 4to, under the title” Opere cavalleresche distinte in quattro libri, cioè in discorsi; consigli, libro I e II e decisioni," Bologna, 1686.

, an engraver on precious stones, was born at Milan, but exercised his art principally in Spain about the middle of the sixteenth century. He was the first who discovered a method of engraving on the diamond, which before was thought impenetrable by the graver. The first work he executed of this kind was a portrait of don Carlos the unfortunate son of Philip II. He also engraved, on diamond, the arms of Spain as a seal for that prince.

, a late valuable historical and biographical writer, was born in the parish of St. John’s Clerkenwell, on the 23d of November, 1705. His parents were both of them quakers, and his father, Joseph Birch, was a coffee-mill maker by trade. Mr. Joseph Birch endeavoured to bring up his son Thomas to his own business; but so ardent was the youth’s passion for reading, that he solicited his father to be indulged in his inclination, promising, in that case, to provide for himself. The first school he went to was at Hemel-hempsted in Hertfordshire, kept by John Owen, a rigid quaker, for whom Mr. Birch afterwards officiated, some little while, as an usher, but at present he made very little progress. The next school in which he received his education was taught by one Welby, who lived near Turnbull-street, Clerkenwell, a man who never had above eight or ten scholars at a time, whom he professed to instruct in the Latin tongue in the short space of a year and a half, and had great success with Mr. Birch, who afterwards lived with him as an usher; as he also afterwards was to Mr. Besse, the famous quaker in George’s court near St. John’s lane, who published the posthumous works of Claridge. It is farther said, that he went to Ireland with dean Smedley; but in what year he passed over to that country, and how long he resided with the dean, cannot now be ascertained. In his removals as an usher, he always took care to get into a still better school, and where he might have the greatest opportunity of studying the most valuable books, in which he was indefatigable, and stole many hours from sleep to increase his stock of knowledge. By this unremitting diligence, though he had not the happiness of an university education, he soon became qualified to take holy orders in the church of England; and as his early connections were of a different kind, his being ordained was a matter of no small surprise to his old acquaintance. In 1728, he married the daughter of one Mr. Cox, a clergyman to whom he was afterwards curate and in this union he was singularly happy but his felicity was of a short duration, Mrs. Birch dying in less than twelve months after their marriage. The disorder which carried her off was a consumption accelerated by childbearing, and almost in the very article of her death she wrote to her husband the following letter:

How much Mr. Birch was affected by this calamity appears from some verses written by him, August 3d, 1729, on his wife’s coffin, and inserted in Mrs. Rowe’s Miscellaneous Works. That Mrs. Birch was a woman of very amiable accomplishments, is not only evident from the verses now mentioned, but from two Latin epitaphs drawn up for her one by her husband, and the other by Dr. Dale, which last was translated into English by Mr. James Ralph. In both these epitaphs, she is celebrated as having- possessed an uncommon share of knowledge and taste, and many virtues. After this melancholy event, he was ordained deacon by the bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Hoadly, Jan. 17, 1730, and priest by the same prelate, Dec. 21, 1731, and at the same time was presented to the rectory of Siddington St. Mary, and the vicarage of Siddington St. Peter, in Gloucestershire. He had been recommended, by a common friend, to the friendship and favour of the late lord high chancellor Hardwicke, then attorney-general; to whom, and to the late earl of Hardwicke, he was indebted for all his preferments. The chancellor gave him the living of Ulting in the county of Essex, to which he was instituted by Dr. Gibson, bishop of London, on the 20th of May, and he took possession of it on the day following. In 1734, he was appointed one of the domestic chaplains to William earl of Kilmarnock, the unfortunate nobleman who was afterwards beheaded, on the 18th of August, 1746, for having been engaged in the rebellion of 1745. The earl of Kilmarnock was, we believe, in more early life, understood to be a whig; and under no other character could Mr. Birch have been introduced to his lordship’s notice. On the 20th of February, 1734-5, Mr. Birch had the honour of being chosen a member of the royal society, sir Hans Sloane taking a leading part in the election. The same honour was done him on the llth of December 1735, by the society of antiquaries of which he afterwards became director. A few weeks before he was chosen into the latter, the Marischal college of Aberdeen had conferred on him, by diploma, the degree of master of arts. In the Spring of 1743, by the favour of his noble patron before mentioned, he received a more substantial benefit; being presented by the crown to the rectory of Landewy Welfrey in the county of Pembroke. To this benefice, which was a sinecure, he was instituted on the 7th of May, by Dr. Edward Willes, bishop of St. David’s. On the 24th of February, 1743-4, he was presented to the rectories of St. Michael, Wood-street, and St. Mary, Staining, united. His next preferment was likewise in the city of London; being to the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, to which he was presented in the beginning of February, 1745-6. In January, 1752, he was elected one of the secretaries of the royal society, in the room of Dr. Cromwell Mortimer, deceased. In January 1753, the Marischal college of Aberdeen created him doctor of divinity and in that year, the same honour was conferred on him by that excellent prelate, Dr. Thomas Herring, archbishop of Canterbury. Our author was also a trustee of the British Museum. The last preferment given to Dr. Birch, was the rectory of Depden in Essex; for which he was indebted to the late earl of Hardwicke. Depden itself, indeed, was in the patronage of Mr. Chiswell, and in the possession of the rev. Dr. Cock. But the benefice in lord Hardwicke’s gift, being at too great a distance from town, to be legally held by Dr. Birch, he obtained an exchange with Dr. Cock. Dr. Birch was instituted to Depden by the late eminent bishop Sherlock, on the 25th of February 1761; and he continued possessed of this preferment, together with the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, till his decease. In 1765, he resigned his office of secretary to the royal society, and was succeeded by Dr. Maty. Dr. Birch’s health declining about this time, he was ordered to ride for the recovery of it but being a bad horseman, and going out, contrary to advice, on a frosty day, he was unfortunately thrown from his horse, on the road betwixt London and Hampstead, and killed on the spot. Dr. William Watson, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, as soon as he heard of the accident of the fall, hastened to the relief of his friend, but in vain. It is not known whether Dr. Birch’s fall might not have been occasioned by an apoplexy. This melancholy event happened on the 9th of January 1766, in the 61st year of his age, to the great regret of the doctor’s numerous literary friends. Some days after his death, he was buried in the chancel of his own church of St. Margaret Pattens. Dr. Birch had, in his life-time, been very generous to his relations; and none that were near to him being living at his decease, he bequeathed his library of books and manuscripts, many of which are valuable, to the British Museum. He, likewise, left the remainder of his fortune, which amounted to not much more than five hundred pounds, to be laid out in government securities, for the purpose of applying the interest to increase the stipend of the three assistant librarians. Thus manifesting at his death, as he had done during his whole life, his respect for literature, and his desire to promote useful knowledge.

Having related the more personal and private circumstances of Dr. Birch’s history, we proceed to his various publications. The first great work he engaged in, was “The General Dictionary, historical and critical” wherein a new translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle was included and which was interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. It was on the 29th of April, 1734, that Dr. Birch, in conjunction with the rev. Mr. John Peter Bernard, and Mr. John Lockman, agreed with the booksellers to carry on this important undertaking; and Mr. George Sale was employed to draw up the articles relating to oriental history. The whole design was completed in ten volumes, folio; the first of which appeared in 1734, and the last in 1741. It is universally allowed, that this work contains a very extensive and useful body of biographical knowledge. We are not told what were the particular articles written by Dr. Birch but there is no doubt of his having executed a great part of the dictionary neither is it, we suppose, any disparagement to his coadjutors, to say, that he was superior to them in abilities and reputation, with the exception of Mr. George Sale, who was, without controversy, eminently qualified for the department he had undertaken. The next great design in which Dr. Birch engaged, was the publication of “Thurloe’s State Papers.” This collection, which comprised seven volumes in folio, came out in 1742. It is dedicated to the late lord chancellor Hardwicke, and there is prefixed to it a life of Thurloe but whether it was written or not by our author, does not appear. The same life had been separately published not long before. The letters and papers in this collection throw the greatest light on the pe'riod to which they relate, and are accompanied with proper references, and a complete index to each volume, yet was a work by which the proprietors were great losers. In 1744, Dr. Birch published, in octavo, a “Life of the honourable Robert Boyle, esq” which hath since been prefixed to the quarto edition of the works of that philosopher. In the same year, our author began his assistance to Houbraken and Vertue, in their design of publishing, in folio, the “Heads of illustrious persons of Great Britain,” engraved by those two artists, but chiefly by Mr. Houbraken. To each head was annexed, by Dr, Birch, the life and character of the person represented. The first volume of this work, which came out in numbers, was completed in 1747, and the second in 1752. Our author’s concern in this undertaking did not hinder his prosecuting, at the same time, other historical disquisitions: for, in 1747, appeared, in octavo,“His inquiry into the share which king Charles the First had in the transactions of the earl of Glamorgan.” A second edition ef the Inquiry was published in 1756, and it was a work that excited no small degree of attention. In 1751, Dr. Birch was editor of the “Miscellaneous works of sir Walter Raleigh” to which was prefixed the life of that unfortunate and injured man. Previously to this, Dr. Birch published “An historical view of the negociations between the courts of England, France, and Brussels, from 1592 to 1617; extracted chiefly from the ms State Papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, knight, embassador in France, and at Brussels, and treasurer of the household to the kings James I. and Charles I. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon. To which is added, a relation of the state of France, with the character of Henry IV. and the principal persons of that court, drawn up by sir George Carew, upon his return from his embassy there in 1609, and addressed to king James I. never before printed.” This work, which consists of one volume, in octavo, appeared in 1749; and, in an introductory discourse to the honourable Philip Yorke, esq. (the late earl of Hardwicke), Dr. Birch makes some reflections on the utility of deducing history from its only true and unerring sources, the original letters and papers of those eminent men, who were the principal actors in the administration of affairs; after which he gives some account of the lives of sir Thomas Edmondes, sir George Carew, and Mr. Anthorry Bacon. The “Historical View” is undoubtedly a valuable performance, and hath brought to light a variety of particulars relative to the subjects and the period treated of, which before were either not at all, or not so fully known. In 17.51, was published by our author, an edition, in two volumes, 8vo, of the “Theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn” with an account of her life. In the next year came out his “Life of the most reverend Dr. John Tillotson, lord archbishop of Canterbury. Compiled chiefly from his original papers and letters.” A second edition, corrected and enlarged, appeared in 1753. This work, which was dedicated to archbishop Herring, is one of the most pleasing and popular of Dr. Birch’s performances; and he has done great justice to Dr. Tillotsou’s memory, character, and virtues. Our biographer hath likewise intermixed with his narrative of the good prelate’s transactions, short accounts of the persons occasionally mentioned; a method which he has pursued in some of his other publications. In 1753, he revised. the quarto edition, in two volumes, of Milton’s prose works, and added a new life of that great poet and writer. Dr. Birch gave to the world', in the following year, his “Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581, till her death. In which the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad, are particularly illustrated. From the original papers of his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, esq. and other manuscripts never before published.” These memoirs, which are inscribed to the earl of Hardwicke, give a minute account of the letters and materials from which they are taken and the whole work undoubtedly forms a very valuable collection in which our author has shewn himself (as in his other writings) to be a faithfnl and accurate compiler and in which, besides a full display of the temper and actions of the earl of Essex, much light is thrown on the characters of the Cecils, Bacons, and many eminent persons of that period. The book is now becoming scarce, and, as it may not speedily be republished, is rising in its value. This is the case, likewise, with regard to the edition of sir Walter Raleigh’s miscellaneous works. Dr. Birch’s next publication was “The history of the Royal Society of London, for improving of natural knowledge, from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those papers, communicated to the society, which have hitherto not been published, are inserted in their proper order, as a supplement to the Philosophical Transactions.” The twq first volumes of this performance, which was dedicated to his late majesty, appeared in 1756, and the two other volumes in 1757. The history is carried on to the end of the year 1687 and if the work had been continued, and had been conducted with the same extent and minuteness, it would have been a very voluminous undertaking. But, though it may, perhaps, be justly blamed in this respect, it certainly contains many curious and entertaining anecdotes concerning the manner of the society’s proceedings at their first establishment. It is enriched, likewise, with a number of personal circumstances relative to the members, and with biographical accounts of such of the more considerable of them as died in the course of each year. In 1760, came out, in one volume, 8vo, our author’s “Life of Henry prince of Wales, eldest son of king James I. Compiled chiefly from his own papers, and other manuscripts, never before published.” It is dedicated to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. Some have objected to this work, that it abounds too much with trifling details, and that Dr. Birch has not given sufficient scope to such reflections and disquisitions as arose from his subject. It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that it affords a more exact and copious account than had hitherto appeared of a prince whose memory has always been remarkably popular; and that various facts, respecting several other eminent characters, are occasionally introduced. Another of his publications was, “Letters, speeches, charges, advices, &c. of Francis Bacon, lord viscount St. AJban, lord chancellor of England.” This collection, which is comprised in one volume, 8vo, and is dedicated to the honourable Charles Yorke, esq. appeared in 1763. It is taken from some papers which had been originally in the possession of Dr. Rawley, lord Bacon’s chaplain, whose executor, Mr. John Rawley, having put them into the hands of Dr. Tenison, they were, at length, deposited in the manuscript library at Lambeth. Dr. Birch, speaking of these papers of lord Bacon, says, that it can scarcely be imagined, but that the bringing to light, from obscurity and oblivion, the remains of so eminent a person, will be thought an acquisition not inferior to the discovery (if the ruins of Herculaneum should afford such a treasure) of a new set of the epistles of Cicero, whom our immortal countryman most remarkably resembled as an orator, a philosopher, a writer, a lawyer, and a statesman. Though this, perhaps, is speaking too highly of a collection, which contains many things in it seemingly not very material, it must, at the same time, be allowed, that nothing can be totally uninteresting which relates to so illustrious a man, or tends, in any degree, to give a farther insight into his character. To this catalogue we have still to add “Professor Greaves’s miscellaneous works,” 1737, in two vols. 8vo. Dr. Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” (improved from the Latin edition of Mosheim) his discourse on the true notion of the Lord’s Supper, and two sermons, with an account of his life and writings, 1743, in two vols. 4to. An edition of Spenser’s “Fairy Queen,” 1751, in three Vols. 4to, with prints from designs by Kent. “Letters between col. Robert Hammond, governor of the Isle of Wight, and the committee of lords and commons at Derbyhouse, general Fairfax, lieut.-general Cromwell, commissary general Ireton, &c. relating to king Charles I. while he was confined in Carisbrooke-castle in that island. Now first published. To which is prefixed a letter from John Ashburnham, esq. to a friend, concerning his deportment towards the king, in his attendance on his majesty at Hampton-court, and in the Isle of Wight,” 1764, 8vo. Dr. Birch’s last essay, “The life of Dr. Ward,” which was finished but a week before his death, was published by Dr. Maty, in 1766.

We have seen that it has been objected to Dr. Birch, that he was sometimes too minute in his publications, and that he. did not always exercise, with due severity, the power of selection. The charge must be confessed not to be totally groundless. But it may be alleged in our author’s favour, that a man who has a deep and extensive acquintance with a subject, often sees a connection and importance in some smaller circumstances, which may not immediately be discerned by others and, on that account, may have reasons for inserting them, that will escape the notice of superficial minds. The same circumstance is noticed in the following character of Dr. Birch by one of our predecessors in this Dictionary, Dr. Heathcote, who knew Dr. Birch well, and consorted with him, for the last thirteen years of his life. Dr. Heathcote “believes him to have been an honest, humane, and generous man warm and zealous in his attachments to persons and principle, but of universal benevolence, and ever ready to promote the happiness of all men. He was cheerful, lively, and spirited, in the highest degree; and, notwithstanding the labours and drudgery he went through in his historical pursuits, no man mixed more in company but he was a very early riser, and thus had done the business of a morning before others had begun it. He was not a man of learning, properly so called he understood the Latin and French languages, not critically, but very well of the Greek he knew very little. He was, however, a man of great general knowledge, and excelled particularly in modern history. As a collector and compiler, he was in the main judicious in the choice of his materials but was sometimes too minute in uninteresting details, and did not always exercise, with due severity, the power of selection. He had a favourite position, that we could not be possessed of too many facts and he never departed from, it, though it was often urged to him, that facts, which admit of no reasoning, and tend to no edification, which can only serve to encumber, and, as it were, smother useful intelligence, had better be consigned to oblivion, than recorded. And indeed, in this very way of biographical compilation, we have always been of opinion, that, if it were less fashionable to relate particulars of every man, which are common to almost all men, we should be equally knowing, and our libraries would be by far less crowded. In his manners, Dr. Birch was simple and unaffected; very communicative, and forward to assist in any useful undertaking; and of a spirit perfectly disinterested, and (as his friends used to tell him) too inattentive to his own emolument.”

, or Bryckinton, or Brickington, so called from Birchington, in the isle of Thanet, where he was born, was a Benedictine monk, belonging to the church of Canterbury, into which order he entered about the year 1382. He wrote a history of the archbishops of Canterbury to the year 1368, which forms the first article in the first volume of Wharton’s Anglia Sacra, who copied it from the ms. in the Lambeth library. Other historical Mss. in the same library are attributed to him, but remain unpublished. He is supposed to have died in 1407.

, an eminent musician and composer, was one of the children of the chapel in the reign of Edward VI. and, as asserted by Wood in the Ashmolean ms. was bred up under Tallis. It appears, that in 1575 Tallis and Bird were both gentlemen and also organists of the royal chapel but the time of their appointment to this latter office cannot now be ascertained with any exactness. The compositions of Bird are many and various those of his younger years were mostly for the service of the church. He composed a work entitled “Sacrarurn Cantionum, quinque vocum, printed in 1589 among which is that noble composition” Civitas sancti tui,“which for many years past has been sung in the church as an anthem, to the words” Bow thine ear, O Lord!“He was also the author of a work entitled” Gradualia, ac Cantiones sacrae, quinis, quaternis, trinisque vocibus conciunatae, lib. primus.“Of this there are two editions, the latter published in 1610. Although it appears by these works, that Bird was in the strictest sense a church musician, he occasionally gave to the world compositions of a secular kind and he seems to be the first among English musicians that ever made an essay in the composition of that elegant species of vocal harmony, the madrigal the” La Verginella“of Ariosto, which he set in that form for five voices, being the most ancient musical composition of the kind to be met with in the works of English authors. Of his compositions for private entertainment, there are extant,” Songs of sundry natures, some of gravitie, and others of myrth, fit for all companies and voyces, printed in 1589;' and two other collections of the same kind, the last of them printed in 1611. But the most permanent memorials of Bird’s excellences are his motets and anthems; to which may be added a fine service in the key of D with the minor third, the first composition in Dr. Boyce’s Cathedral Music, vol. III. and that well-known canon of his, “Non nobis, Dornine.” Besides his salaries and other emoluments of his profession, it is to be supposed that Bird derived some advantages frotn the patent granted by queen Elizabeth to Tallis and him, for the sole printing of music and music-paper Dr. Ward speaks of a book which he had seen with the letters T. E. for Thomas East, Est, or Este, who printed music under that patent. Tallis dying in 1585, the patent, by the terms of it, survived to bird, who, no doubt for a valuable consideration, permitted East to exercise the right of printing under the protection of it and he in the titlepage of most of his publications styles himself the “assignee of William Bird.” Bird died in 1623.

, an Italian mathematician, was born at Sienna about the end of the fifteenth century, and died about the middle of the sixteenth. After having served in the wars under the dukes of Parma and Ferrara, and the republic of Venice, he employed himself in studying the art of fusing and casting metal for cannon, and improving the quality of gunpowder. He was the first of his nation who wrote upon these subjects. The work in which he laid down his experience and practice, was entitled “Pirotecnia, nella quale si tratta non sole della diversita delle minere, ma anco di quanto si ricerca alia pratica di esse, e che s’appartienne all‘arte della fusione o getto de’ metalli,” Venice, 1540, 4to, often reprinted and translated.

, a priest of Rome, who in the year 634 obtained leave of pope Honorius to preach the gospel to the idolaters in Britain, at which the pope was so much pleased, that he caused him to be ordained bishop. This missionary landing in the kingdom of the West Saxons, with many others baptised king Cynegilsus, who began to reign in the year 6 11, and filled the throne thirty-one years. St. Birinus fixed his see at Dercis, now Dorchester, in Oxfordshire, in the windows of which beautiful church are still some remains of painting relative to the history of his mission. He built and consecrated many churches, and had great success in converting the natives, until his death, about the year 650. November 29 is his day in the calendar. He was first buried at Dorchester, but his remains were afterwards translated to Winchester.

, a political author in the seventeenth century, was the son of Richard Birkenhead, of Northwych, in the county of Cheshire, an honest saddler, who, if some authors may deserve credit, kept also a little ale-house. Our author was born about 1615, and having received some tincture of learning in the common grammar-schools, came to Oxford, and was entered in 1632, a servitor of Oriel college, under the tuition of the learned Dr. Humphrey Lloyd, afterwards bishop of Bangor. Dr. Lloyd recommended him to Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, as his amanuensis, and in that capacity he discovered such talents, that the archbishop, by his diploma, created him A. M. in 1639, and the year following, by letter commendatory from the same great prelate, he was chosen probationary fellow of All-souls college. This preferment brought him to reside constantly in Oxford, and on king Charles I. making that city his head-quarters during the civil war, our author was employed to write a kind of journal in support of the royal cause, by which he gained great reputation; and his majesty recommended him to be chosen reader in moral philosophy, which employment he enjoyed, though with very small profit, till 1648, when he was expelled by the parliament visitors. He retired afterwards to London, where adhering steadily to his principles, he acquired, among those of his own sentiments, the title of “The Loyal Poet,” and suffered, from such as had then the power in their hands, several imprisonments, which served only to sharpen his wit, without abating his courage. He published, while he thus lived in obscurity, and, as Wood says, by his wits, some very tart performances, which were then very highly relished, and are still admired by the curious. These were, like his former productions, levelled against the republican leaders, and were written with the same vindictive poignancy that was then fashionable. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. he was created April 6, 1661, on the king’s letters sent for that purpose, D. C. L. by the university of Oxford and in that quality was o'ne of the eminent civilians consulted by the convocation on the question “Whether bishops ought to be present in capital cases?” and with the rest, Keb. 2, 1661-2, gave it under his hand, they ought and might. He was, about the same time, elected a burgess, to serve in parliament for Wilton, in the county of Wilts, and continuing his services to his master, was by him promoted, on the first vacancy, to some office at court, which he quitted afterwards, and became master in the Faculty office. He was knighted November 14, 1662, and upon sir Richard Fanshaw’s going with a public character to the court of Madrid, sir John Birkenhead succeeded him as master of requests. He was also elected a member of the royal society, an honour at that time conferred on none who were not well known in the republic of letters, as men capable of promoting the truly noble designs of that learned body. He lived afterwards in credit and esteem with men of wit and learning, and received various favours from the court, in consideration of the past, and to instigate him to other services; which, however, drew upon him some very severe attacks from those who opposed the court. Anthony Wood has preserved some of their coarsest imputations, for what reason is not very obvious, as Wood is in general very partial to the loyalist writers. He died in Westminster, December 4, 1679, and was interred at St. Martin’s in the Fields, leaving to his executors, sir Richard Mason, and sir Muddiford Bamston, a large and curious collection of pamphlets on all subjects.

Sir John’s newspaper which he wrote at Oxford, was entitled “Mercurius Aulicus, communicating the intelligence and affairs of the court to the rest of the kingdom.” It was printed weekly in one sheet, and sometimes more, in 4to and was chiefly calculated to raise the reputation of the king’s friends and commanders, and ridicule those who sided with the parliament. They came out regularly from the beginning of 1642, to the latter end of 1645, and afterwards, occasionally. When Birkenhead was otherwise engaged, Dr. Peter Heylyn supplied his place, but was not thought so capable of that species of writing, as he did not excel in popular wit, which is necessary to render such kind of pieces acceptable to the public. The parliament thought fit to oppose this court -journal by another on their side of the question, under the title of “Mercurius Britannicus,” written by Marchmont Nedham, to whom the royalists gave the name of “foul-mouthed Nedham” who, finding himself somewhat unequal to the Oxford writer, thought fit to ascribe the “Mercurius Aulicus” to several persons, that his deficiency might do the less prejudice to his party. Jacob blunderingly calls the ^ Mercurius Aulicus,“a poem. Sir John’s other satirical works were 1.” The Assembly-man,“written in 1647, but printed, as Wood tells us, 1662-3. 2.” News from Pembroke and Montgomery or, Oxford Manchestered,“c. 1648. 3.” St. Paul’s church-yard libri theologici, politici, historic!, nundinis Paulinis (una cum templo) prostant venales, &c.“printed in three sheets, 1649, 4to. These sheets were published separately, as if they had been parts of one general catalogue. An account of them is in the Cens. Lit. vol. IV. 4.” The four-legged Quaker, a ballad, to the tune of the dog and elder’s maid,“5.” A new ballad of a famous German prince, without date," &c.

Our author has also several verses and translations extant, set to music by Mr. Henry Lawes as particularly Anacreon’s ode, called the Lute, translated from the Greek, and to be sung by a bass alone; and an Anniversary on the nuptials of John earl of Bridgwater, 22d July, 1652. He wrote, likewise, a poem on his staying in London after the Act of Banishment for cavaliers and another called the Jolt, made upon Cromwell the protector’s being thrown out of his coach-box in Hyde-Park. He published Mr. Robert Waring’s “Effigies Amoris, sive quid sit Amor efflagitanti responsum,” London, 1649, 12mo, from the original, at the author’s desire, who was willing to be concealed. The third edition was published after the restoration, by William Griffith, of Oxford, with an epistle before it, written by him to sir John Birkenhead wherein he gives the character of that gentleman, as well as of the author. This was the same piece afterwards translated into English by the famous Mr, Norris of Bemerton, and published under the title of “The Picture of Love unveiled.” We meet also with several copies of verses written by this gentleman, and prefixed to the works of the most eminent wits and greatest poets of his time but satire was his principal excellence, and in genuine powers of ridicule he had no superior, at a time when those powers were called forth, and well rewarded by both parties.

, a modern Latin poet, was born in 1617, near St. Paul’s cathedral, in London, and after having been educated under the famous Farnaby, was entered a commoner at Trinity college, Oxford, in 1633; admitted Scholar there, May 28, 1635, and soon after was seduced to become a member of the college of Jesuits, at St. Omer’s. He soon, however, returned to the church of England, and by the patronage of archbishop Laud, was elected fellow of All Souls, in 1638, being then bachelor of arts, and esteemed a good philologist. He proceeded in that faculty, was made senior of the act celebrated in 1641, and entered on the law faculty. He kept his fellowship during the usurpation, but resigned it after the restoration, when he became registrar of the diocese of Norwich. This too he resigned in 1684, and resided first in the Middle Temple, and then in other places, in a retired condition for many years. The time of his death is not mentioned but in the title of Trapp’s “Lectures on Poetry,” Henry Birkhead, LL. D. some time fellow of All Souls college, is styled “Founder of the poetical lectures,” the date of which foundation is 1707. He wrote 1. “Poemata in Elegiaca, lambica, Polymetra, &c. membranatim quadripartite,” 1656, 8vo. 2. “Otium Literarium, sive miscellanea quaedam Poemata,” 16=6, 8vo. He also published in 4to, with a preface, some of the philological works of his intimate friend Henry Jacob, who had the honour of teaching Selden the Hebrew language; and he wrote several Latin elegies on the loyalists who Suffered in the cause of Charles I. which are scattered in various printed books, and many of them subscribed H. G.

, a celebrated Italian scholar of the last century, was born at Florence, Aug. 14, 1674. After finishing his studies, he taught a school, which produced Bottari, the prelate, and some other eminent men. The grand duke Cosmo III. having given him some benefices, he took priest’s orders, and the degree of doctor in the university of Florence, and spent several years in preaching, particularly in the cathedral church of St. Laurence. The chapter, in 1713, appointed him keeper of the Mediceo-Laurentian library, and to this office he was re-elected in 1725, 1729, and 1739, but he could not, with all his endeavours, prevail on the chapter to grant it him for life. While here, however, he began a new course of studies, learned Greek, Hebrew, and other oriental languages, and applied himself particularly to the Tuscan here also he found a very useful patron in Nicolas Panciatichi, a very opulent Florentine nobleman, who received him into his house, where he remained eleven years, and made him his children’s tutor, his librarian, secretary, archivist, &c. and amply rewarded him for his services in all thi’se departments. He was also appointed apostolic prothonotary, synodal examiner at Florence and Fiesola, and reviser of cases of conscience in these dioceses. At length, in 174-1, the grand duke of his own accord made him royal librarian of the Laurentian library, and in 1745, gave him a canonry of St. Laurence. In his place as librarian, he was of essential service to men of letters, and was engaged in many literary undertakings which were interrupted by his death, May 4, 1756. He left a very capital collection of rare editions and manuscripts, which the grand duke purchased and divided between the Laurentian and Magliabechian libraries. Biscioni during his life-time was a man of great reputation, and many writers have spoken highly in his praise. He published very little that could be called original, his writings consisting principally of the notes, commentaries, prefaces, letters, and dissertations, with which he enriched the works of others such as the preface and notes to his edition of the “Prose di Dante Alighieri e di Gio. Boccaccio,” Florence, 1713 1723, 4to his notes on “Menzini’s Satires” his preface and notes on the “Riposo” of Raphael Borghini, Florence, 1730, 4to, &c. &c. The only work he published not of this description, was a vindication of the first edition of the “Canti Carnascialeschi,” against a reprint of that work by the abbé Bracci, entitled “Parere sopra la seconda edizione de' Canti Carnascialeschi e in difesa della prima edizione,” &c. Florence, 1750, 8vo. He had begun the catalogue of the Mediceo- Laurentian library, of which the first volume, containing the oriental manuscripts, was magnificently printed at Florence, 1752, folio, and the rest continued by the canon Giulanelli, many years after, who added the Greek Mss. Biscioni left many notes, critical remarks, &c. on books, a history of the Panciatichi family, and of his own family, and some satires on those who had so long prevented him from being perpetual keeper of the Laurentian library, an injury he seems never to have forgotten.

In January 1783, he was elected head-master of Merchant Taylors, the duties of which important station entirely occupied his attention, and in 1789, the company of Merchant Taylors presented him to the living of St. Martin Outwich, as a reward for his long and faithful services. Dr. Warren, bishop of Bangor, a few years before had obtained for him, from the earl of Aylesford, the rectory of Ditton in Kent. But he did not long enjoy these preferments bodily infirmities grew fast upon him, and repeated fits of the gout undermined his constitution. In the beginning of 1795, he was alarmed by an oppression on his breath, which proved to be occasioned by water on the chest, and terminated in his death, Nov. 17, 1795. He left a widow, whose virtues he has affectionately commemorated in many of his poems, and one daughter. The year following his death, his “Poetical Works” were published by subscription, in 2 vols. 4to, with Memoirs of the Life of the Author, by the rev. Thomas Clare, M. A. now vicar of St. Bride’s, Fleet-street, from which the present sketch is taken and in 1798, the same editor published a volume of Mr. Bishop’s “Sermons, chiefly upon practical subjects.” The poems entitle Mr. Bishop to a very distinguished rank among minor poets, and among those who write with ease and elegance on familiar subjects; but we doubt whether his talents could have reached the higher species of the art. He is sometimes nervous, sometimes pathetic, but never sublime yet his vein of humour was well calculated for the familiar verses, epigrams, &c. which are so plentiful in these volumes. His style is always pure, and his imagination uncommonly fertile in those lesser poems which require a variety of the grave, gay, the witty and the instructive.

, vicar apostolical in England, and the first popish bishop that was sent thither after the reformation, was born in 1553, at Brayles in Warwickshire. He studied in the university of Oxford; Wood thinks, either in Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college), or in Lincoln college, the heads of both which were secret favourers of popery from Oxford he went to Rheims and Rome, and having been sent back to England, as a missionary, he was arrested at Dover, and confined in prison in London until the end of the year 1584. Being then released, he went to Paris, took his degree of licentiate, and came again to England in 1591. In two years he returned to Paris, completed his degree of doctor, and soon after his arrival in England, a dispute arising among the popish clergy here, he was sent to Rome with another missionary to appeal to the pope. In 1612 we find him again in England, and in confinement, on account of the oath of allegiance, to which, however, he was not so averse as many of his brethren. He had, in fact, written against the bull of pope Pius V. to prove that the catholics were bound to be faithful to their sovereigns, and in 1602 he had signed a declaration of the same principle, without any equivocacation or mental reservation, which gave great offence to the Jesuits. Out of respect, however, to the authority of the pope, who had proscribed that oath, he refused to take it, and was committed to prison. On his release he went to Paris, and wrote some tracts against those eminent protestant divines, Perkins and Abbot. Since the death of Watson, bishop of Lincoln, the last of the popish bishops who outlived the reformation, it had often been intended to re-establish the episcopal government in England; and the marriage of the prince Charles, afterwards Charles I. with the Infanta of Spain, seemed to offer a fair opportunity for carrying this scheme into execution, the hopes of the catholics being considerably raised by that match. Accordingly, Dr. Bishop was consecrated at Paris, in 1623, by the title of bishop of Chalcedon, and being sent to England, began his career by forming a chapter, appointing grand vicars, archdeacons, and rural deans, &c. but did not enjoy his promotion long, as he died April 16, 1624. His party speak liberally of his zeal, virtues, and learning, and he undoubtedly was the more useful to their cause in England, as he contrived to exercise his functions without giving much offence to government. Dodd and Wood have given a list of his controversial writings, which are now in little request, but it must not be forgot that he was the publisher of Pits’ s very useful work, “De illustribus Anglic Scriptoribus,” 1623, to which he wrote a verylearned preface.

, an ingenious physician, was born at Glenalbert, near Dunkeld in Perthshire, Scotland, in 1717. After a course of medical studies at Edinburgh, he was appointed in 1740, second surgeon to the military hospital in Jamaica, and spent several years in the West India islands, and in admiral Yemen’s fleet, where he acquired a knowledge of the diseases of the torrid zone. Having in 1745, contracted a bad state of health at New Greenwich in Jamaica, he was under the necessity of resigning his place of second surgeon to the hospital, and returning to England. In May 1746, he purchased an ensigncy in the forty-second regiment, commanded by lord John Murray; and by this transition, his attention being turned from medical pursuits to military affairs, fortification became his favourite study. After a fruitless descent on the coast of Brittany in France in September 1746, and passing a winter at Limerick in Ireland, they were, in the beginning of the next campaign, brought into action at Sandberg, near Hulst in Dutch Flanders, where one Dutch regiment and two English suffered very much. Here, having drawn a sketch of the enemy’s approaches, with the environs, and some time after, a pretty correct one of Bergen-op-Zoom, with the permanent lines, the environs, and the enemy’s first parallel, which were presented by lord John Murray to his royal highness the late duke of Cumberland, his highness ordered Mr. Bisset to attend the siege of that fortress, and give due attention daily to the progress of the attack, and to the defence, in order to take accurate journals of them. These journals, illustrated with plans, were delivered daily to lord John Murray, who forwarded them to the duke, by whose application to the duke of Montague, then master of the ordnance, Mr. Bisset received a warrant as engineer extraordinary in the brigade of engineers which was established to serve in the Low Countries during the war and he was also promoted to a lieutenancy in the army. The brigade of engineers being re-formed at the end of the war, and he being at the same time put upon the half-pay list as lieutenant, he continued to employ great part of his time in the study of fortification and in 1751, after visiting France, published his work “On the Theory and Construction of Fortifications,” 8vo, and some time after, being unemployed, he resumed the medical profession to which he had been originally destined, and retired to the village of Skelton, in Cleveland, Yorkshire, where, or in the vicinity, he ever after continued,

, a French poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Konigsberg, Nov. 24, 1732, of a family of French refugees, of the protestant religion. After completing his education, he became a clergyman of that communion, and appears to have formed his taste for oratory and poetry from a frequent perusal of the Bible, the style of the historical part of which he much admired. He was a no less warm admirer of Homer. Although a Prussian by birth, he was a Frenchman at heart, and having accustomed himself to the language of his family, he felt a strong desire to reside in what he considered as properly his native country, conceiving at the same time that the best way to procure his naturalization would be through the medium of literary merit. As early as 1762, he published at Berlin a translation of the Iliad, which he called a free translation, and was in fact an abridgment and this served to introduce him to D'Alembert, who recommended him so strongly to the king, Frederick II. that he was admitted into the Berlin academy, received a pension, and afterwards visited France in order to complete his translation of Homer. A first edition had been printed in 1764, 2 vols. 8vo, but the most complete did not appear until 1780, and was followed by the Odyssey in 1785. Such was the reputation of both among his countrymen, that the academy of inscriptions admitted his name on their list of foreign members. Modern French critics, however, have distinguished more correctly between the beauties and defects of this translation. They allow him to have been more successful in his “Joseph,” a poem published first in 1767, and with additions in 1786, and now become almost a classic in France. It was translated into English in 1783, 2 vols. 12mo, but is certainly not likely to become a classic in this country, or where a taste prevails for simplicity and elegance. His “Joseph” was followed by “Les Bataves,” a poem of which some detached parts had appeared in 1773, under the title of “Guillaume de Nassau,” Amsterdam. This was reprinted in 1775, and again in 1796. During the war in 1793, as he attached himself to the French interest, he was struck off the list of the academy of Berlin, and his pension withdrawn but on the peace of Bale, his honours and his pension were restored. If his sovereign punished him thus for acting the Frenchman, he was not more fortunate with his new friends, who imprisoned him because he was a Prussian. On the establishment of the institute, however, Bitaube was chosen of the class of literature and the fine arts but gave a very bad specimen of his taste in translating the “Herman and Dorothea” of Goethe, and comparing that author with Homer, whose works, from this opinion, we should suppose he had studied to very little purpose. Some time before his death, which happened Nov. 22, 1808, he was admitted a member of the legion of honour. His other works were 1. “Examen de la Confession de Foi du Vicaire Savoyard,” 1763, a very liberal expostulation with Rousseau on account of his scepticism. 2. “De l'influence cles Belles-lettres sur la Philosophic,” Berlin, 1767, 8vo; and 3. “Eloge de Corneille,” 1769, 8vo none of which are in the collection of his works published at Paris in 1804, 9 vols. 8vo. Bitaub cannot be ranked among writers eminent for genius, nor is his taste, even in the opinion of his countrymen, of the purest standard; but his works procured him a considerable name, and many of the papers he wrote in the memoirs of the Paris academy discover extensive reading and critical talents. His private character appears to have been irreproachable, and his amiable manners and temper procured him many friends during the revolutionary successions.

, one of the most eminent chemical philosophers of the last century, was born in France, on the banks of the Garonne, in 1728. His father, Mr. John Black, was a native of Belfast, in Ireland, but of a Scotch family, which had been some time settled there. Mr. Black resided most commonly at Bourdeaux, where he carried on the wine trade. He married a daughter of Mr. Robert Gordon of the family of Halhead, in Aberdeenshire, who was also engaged in the same trade at Bourdeaux. Mr. Black was a gentleman of the most amiable manners, candid and liberal in his sentiments, and of no common information. He enjoyed the particular intimacy and friendship of the celebrated president Montesquieu, who most likely acquired his knowledge of the constitution of Britain, for which he was known to have a strong partiality, from the information communicated by Mr. Black. Long before Mr. Black retired from business, his son Joseph was sent to Belfast, that he might have the education of a British subject. He was then twelve years of age, and six years after, in the year 1746, he was sent to continue his education in the university of Glasgow. Being required by his father to make choice of a profession, he preferred that of medicine, as most suited to the general bent of his studies.

It was fortunately at this time that Dr. Cullen had just entered upon his great career, was become conscious of his strength, and saw the great unoccupied field of philosophical chemistry open before him. He quickly succeeded in taking chemistry out of the hands of mere artists, and exhibited it as a liberal science. His pupils became zealous chemists, as well as refined physiologists. Young Black was particularly delighted with the science, and his great bias to the study was soon perceived by Dr. Cullen, who delighted to encourage and assist the efforts of his students. He soon attached Mr. Black to himself so closely, that the latter was considered as his assistant in all his operations, and his experiments were frequently referred to as good authority. Our young philosopher had laid down a very comprehensive plan of study, as appears from his note-books, which are still preserved. In these he wrote down every thing that occurred to him, and they exhibit the first germs and progress of his ideas, till the completion of those great discoveries which produced so complete a revolution in chemical science.

At this time Dr. Cullen was removed to Edinburgh, and there being a vacancy in the chemical chair at Glasgow, it was immediately agreed that it could not be bestowed with greater propriety than upon the author of so important a discovery. Accordingly, Dr. Black was appointed professor of anatomy, and lecturer on chemistry in the university of Glasgow, in 1756, but not conceiving himself so well qualified for filling the anatomical chair, he obtained the concurrence of the university to exchange tasks with the professor of medicine. While in Glasgow, therefore, his chief business was delivering lectures on the institutes of medicine. His reputation as a professor increased every year, and he became a favourite practitioner in that large and active city. Indeed, the sweetness of his temper could not fail to make him a welcome visitor in every family. His countenance was no less engaging than his manner was attractive. The ladies regarded themselves as honoured by his attentions, particularly as they were exclusively bestowed on those who evinced a superiority of mental accomplishments or propriety of demeanour, and of grace and elegance of manner. This situation, and the anxious care which he took of his patients, may in some measure account for the little progress made by Dr. Black in that fine career of experimental investigation which he had so auspiciously opened. Yet his inactivity must be lamented as highly injurious to science it displayed an indolence or carelessness of reputation not altogether to be justified.

Dr. Black having established this discovery by simple and decisive experiments, drew up an account of the whole investigation, and read it to a literary society which met every Friday in the faculty- room of the college, consisting of the members of the university, and several gentlemen of the city, who had a relish for philosophy and literature. This was done April 23, 1762, as appears by the registers. This doctrine was immediately applied by its author to the explanation of a vast number of natural phenomena, and in his experimental investigations he was greatly assisted by his two celebrated pupils Mr. Watt and Dr. Irvine.

As Dr. Black never published an account of his doctrine of latent heat, though he detailed it every year subsequent to 1762 in his lectures, which were frequented by men of science from all parts of Europe, it became known only through that channel, and this gave an opportunity to others to pilfer it from him piece-meal. Dr. Crawford’s ideas respecting the capacity of bodies for heat, were originally derived from Dr. Black, who first pointed out the method of investigating that subject/

, an eminent English divine, was born in London, 1654, and educated at Catherine-hail, Cambridge. In 1690, he was inducted into the living of South Okenden, Essex, and four years afterwards to the rectory of St. Mary Aldermary, London and was successively chosen lecturer of St. Olave’s, and of St. Dunstan’s in the West. He was likewise appointed chaplain to king William. He preached before the house of commons Jan. 30, 1699, and in his sermon animadverted on Mr. Toland for his asserting in his life of Milton, that Charles I. was not the author of “Icon Basilike,” and for some insinuations against the authenticity' of the holy scriptures which drew him into a controversy with that author. In 1700, he preached a course of sermons at Boyle’s lecture, in the cathedral church of St. Paul, which were afterwards published. In 1707, he was consecrated to the bishopric of Exeter. Burnet, having mentioned him and sir William Dawes as raised to bishoprics, tells us, “that these divines were in themselves men of value and worth; but their notions were all on the other side. They had submitted to the government but they, at least Blackall, seemed to condemn the revolution, and all that had been done pursuant to it.” And it is asserted in an anonymous pamphlet, published in 1705, that he had refused for two years to take the oath of allegiance to king William. But what contributed most to his fame in his life- time was a controversy he had with Mr. (afterwards bishop) Hoadly, which was occasioned by his sermon upon Rom. xiii. 3, 4, entitled, “The Divine Institution of Magistracy, and the gracious design of its institution,” preached before the queen at St. James’s on Tuesday, March 8, 1708, being the anniversary of her majesty’s happy accession to the throne, and published by her majesty’s special command. The next year, 1709, Mr. Hoadly animadverted upon the bishop’s sermon, in a piece, entitled “Some Considerations humbly offered to the right reverend the lord bishop of Exeter, occasioned by his lordship’s sermon before her majesty, March 8, 1708.” Upon this the bishop published “An Answer to Mr. Hoadly’s Letter,” dated from Bath, May the 10th, 1709. Mr. Hoadly endeavoured to vindicate himself, in “An humble Reply to the right reverend the lord bishop of Exeter’s answer; in which the Considerations offered to his lordship are vindicated, and an apology is added for defending the foundation of the present government,” London, 1709, in 8vo. In this controversy, bishop Blackall defends the High-church, Tory, principles (as they usually are called), of the divine institution of magistracy, and unlimited passive obedience and non-resistance; which Mr. Hoadly opposes. There were several pamphlets written on the side of the bishop against Mr. Hoadly particularly one, entitled, “The best Answer that ever was made, and to which no answer will be made” supposed to be wi'itten by Mr. Lesley, a nonjuring clergyman, and which Mr. Hoadly animadverts upon in the postscript to his humble reply. The wits in the Tatler engaged in this controversy on the side of Hoadly, and with an illiberality not usual in the writers of that paper. He died at Exeter, Nov. 29, 1716, and was interred in the cathedral there. Archbp. Dawes, who had a long and intimate friendship with him, declares, that in his whole conversation he never met with a more perfect pattern of a true Christian life, in all its parts, than in him: so much primitive simplicity and integrity; such constant evenness of mind, and uniform conduct of behaviour; such unaffected and yet most ardent piety towards God such orthodox and steadfast faith in Christ such disinterested and fervent charity to all mankind such profound modesty, humility, and sobriety such an equal mixture of meekness and courage, of cheerfulness and gravity such an exact discharge of all relative duties and in one word, such an indifferency to this lower world and the things of it and such an entire affection and joyous hope and expectation of things above. He says also, that his “manner of preaching was so excellent, easy, clear, judicious, substantial, pious, affecting, and upon all accounts truly useful and edifying, that he universally acquired the reputation of being one of the best preachers of his time.” Felton, in his Classics, commends him as an excellent writer. M. de la Roche, in his memoirs of literature, tells us, that our prelate was one of those English divines, who, when they undertake to treat a subject, dive into the bottom of it, and exhaust the matter. His works were published by archbishop Dawes, in 2 vols. fol. 1723, consisting of Practical discourses on our Saviour’s Sermon on the mount, and on the Lord’s Prayer, together with his sermons preached at Boyle’s lecture, with several others upon particular occasions.

, a learned English divine of the last century, was born in 1683, and educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. Whether he had any promotion in the church is not certain; but soon after the revolution, he refused to take the oaths, and consequently excluded himself from advancing in the church. From that time he lived a very exemplary and studious life, endeavouring to be useful to mankind, both as a scholar and divine. To preserve his independence, he became corrector of the press to Bowyer, the celebrated printer, and was one of the most accurate of his profession. The edition of lord Bacon’s works in 1740 was superintended by him; and he was also editor of the castrations of Holinshed’s Chronicle, and of Bale’s “Chrouycle concernynge syr Johan Oldecastell.” A handsome compliment is paid him in Maittaire’s Lives of the Paris printers, 1717; and again in his “Miscellanea aliquot 8criptorum carmina,” 1722. For some years before his death, he was a nonjuring bishop, but lived retired in Little Britain among his old books. What his hopes were of a second revolution will appear from the answer he gave a gentleman who asked him if he was in his diocese? “Dear friend, we leave the sees open, that the gentlemen who now unjustly possess them, upon the restoration, may, if they please, return to their duty and be continued. We content ourselves with full episcopal power as suffragans.” Mr, Blackbourne died Nov. 17, 1741, and his library was sold by auction in February 1742. He was buried in Islington church-yard, with an epitaph, which may be seen in our authority.

, an eminent surveyor and architect, was born in the borough of Southwark, on the 20th of December, 1750. His father was a respectable tradesman in St. John’s parish, and his mother was a native of Spain. The whole of his grammatical education was derived from a common seminary in the neighbourhood; and at a proper age he was placed under a surveyor of no eminence, but from whom he derived very few advantages in the knowledge of his profession. However, from the natural bent of an ardent mind, he sought the acquaintance of men of genius, several of whom belonged to the Jioyal Academy. Into that academy he was admitted as a student; and in 1773 he was presented with the medal for the best drawing of the inside of St. Stephen’s church in Walbrook. This prize he bore away from many competitors and, at the delivery of it, received a high compliment to his abilities from the late sir Joshua Reynolds, the president. About the same time he entered into business for himself in Southwark, and carried it on for some years with increasing success among his private connections, when an event occurred which brought him into public notice and reputation. An act of parliament had passed in 1779, declaring, that “if any offenders convicted of crimes for which transportation had been usually inflicted, were ordered to solitary imprisonment, accompanied by well regulated labour and religious instruction, it might be the means, under providence, not only of deterring others from the commission of the like crimes, but also of reforming the individuals, and enuring them to the habits of industry.” By this act his majesty was authorised to appoint three persons to be supervisors of the buildings to be erected; and the supervisors were to fix upon any common, heath, or waste, or any other piece of ground, in Middlesex, Essex, Kent, or Surrey, on which should be erected two plain strong edifices, to be called “Penitentiary Houses” one for the confinement and employment of six hundred males, the other of three hundred females. In the same year in which the act was passed, three supervisors were appointed to carry it into execution. These were John Howard, esq George Whatley, esq. and Dr. John Fothergill. This commission however was dissolved, first by the death of Dr. Fothergill, and soon after that event by the resignation of Mr. Howard, who found it not in his power to coalesce with his remaining colleague. Another set of supervisors was therefore appointed in 1781, being sir Gilbert Elliot, bart. sir Charles Bunbury, bart. and Thomas Bowdler, esq. One of the principal objects with these gentlemen was to provide that they should be constructed in the manner most conducive to the ends of solitary confinement, useful labour, and moral reformation. Accordingly, the supervisors proposed premiums for the best plans that should be produced of the penitentiary houses intended to be erected. The highest premium was a hundred guineas, which xvas unanimously assigned to Mr. Blackburn, in the month of March 1782. This preference, as a pecuniary consideration, was a matter of little consequence. The grand advantage that was to be expected from it, with regard to Mr. Blackburn, was, that he should be employed as the architect and surveyor of the buildings proposed. And in fact he was appointed by the supervisors to that office and the plan of a penitentiary house for male offenders was accordingly arranged by him, and proper draughts were made for the use of the workmen; and a great part of the work was actually contracted for by different persons. Yet the designs of government were not carried into execution the circumstances of the times having diverted the attention of public men from this important object nor has it ever since been resumed. Nevertheless, though Mr. Blackburn might in this respect be disappointed of his just expectations, he did not lose his reward, nor was the nation deprived of the benefit arising from his ingenuity. A spirit of erecting prisons in conformity to his plans was immediately excited and many county gaols, and other structures of the same nature, were built under his inspection. Besides the completion of several prisons, Mr. Blackburn was engaged in other designs of a similar nature, when he was arrested by the hand of death, in the fortieth year of his age. He departed this life on the 28th day of October, 1790, at Preston in Lancashire, being on a journey to Scotland, whither he was going at the instance of his grace the duke of Buccleugh, and the lord provost of Glasgow, with a view to the erection of a new gaol in that city. From Preston his remains were removed to London, and interred in the burying-ground of Bunhill-fields.

Being a dissenter of the presbyterian denomination, he was in the habits of intimacy with the principal persons of that persuasion both in town and country without however confining his regard and affection to any particular sect. But what confers peculiar honour on Mr. Blackburn’s memory is, that he enjoyed the intimate friendship and entire esteem of the excellent Mr. Howard; that he concurred with him in his ideas, and eminently promoted his benevolent designs. Mr. Blackburn frequently corresponded with Mr. Howard, when that gentleman was engaged, either at home or abroad, in his journeys and voyages of humanity. Of Mr. Blackburn Mr. Howard used to say, that he was the only man he ever met with, who was capable of delineating to his mind, upon paper, his ideas of what a prison ought to be.

The person of Mr. Blackburn was of the middle stature; and from his early youth he was so very corpulent, that his friends were filled with apprehensions, too unhappily verified, that his life would not be a long one. Till he became twenty-five years of age, he drank nothing but water. But at that time, in consequence of a severe fit of sickness, he was advised by the late Dr. John Fothergill to change his beverage for malt liquor, and occasionally to take a glass of wine. The affliction of another severe illness, later in life, was sustained by him with eminent and exemplary resignation and fortitude. Previously to his last journey he was considerably better, and entertained hopes that travelling might contribute to the restoration of his former health: but it was ordered otherwise by the supreme Disposer of events. By a sudden stroke he was for ever taken from his beloved wife and children; who, with a number of select friends, were left to lament a loss, which they must feel so long as they remain in this world. The character of Mr. Blackburn was, in every view of it, amiable and respectable. In discharging the duties and relations of life, he was uniform and consistent. He was very cheerful in his- temper, and affable and engaging in his behaviour. Being endued with a great flow of spirits, and much vivacity of mind, his conversation was at once agreeable and instructive. In February, 1783, Mr. Blackburn married Lydia, the daughter of Mr. Joshua Hobson, an eminent builder in his neighbourhood an amiable woman, with whom he lived in the most perfect harmony, and by whom he left four children.

, the celebrated author of the “Confessional,” was born at Richmond in Yorkshire, June 9, 1705. At the age of seventeen he was admitted pensioner of Catherine-hall, Cambridge, where his peculiar notions on civil and religious liberty rendered him obnoxious to his superiors, and occasioned the loss of a fellowship for which he was a candidate. In 1739, he was ordained by Dr. Gooch, bishop of Norwich, at Ely chapel, Holborn, and in a short time afterwards was inducted into the rectory of Richmond in Yorkshire, where he resided constantly for forty years, during which he composed all the pieces contained in the late edition of his works, besides a multitude of smaller ones. His first appearance as an author was on the following occasion. In 1749, the rev. John Jones, vicar of Alconbury, near Huntingdon, published his “Free and candid disquisitions relating to the Church of England,” containing many observations on the supposed defects and improprieties in the liturgical forms of faith and worship of the established church. As Mr. Blackburne corresponded with this gentleman, who had submitted the work to his perusal in manuscript, and as there were many of his opinions in which Mr. Blackburne coincided, it was not unnatural to suppose that he had a hand in the publication. This, however, Mr. Blackburne solemnly denied, and his biographer has assigned the probable reason. “The truth,” says he, “is, Mr. Blackburne, whatever desire he might have to forward the work of ecclesiastical reformation, could not possibly conform his style to the milky phraseology of the ‘ Disquisitions,’ nor could he be content to have his sentiments mollified by the gentle qualifications of Mr. Jones’s lenient pen. He was rather (perhaps too much) inclined to look upon those who had in their hands the means and the power of reforming the errors, defects, and abuses, in the government, forms of worship, faith and discipline, of the established church, as guilty of a criminal negligence, from which they should have been roused by sharp and spirited expostulations. He thought it became disquisitors, with a cause in hand of such high importance to the influence of vital Christianity, rather to have boldly forced the utmost resentment of the class of men to which they addressed their work, than, by meanly truckling to their arrogance, to derive upon themselves their ridicule and contempt, which all the world saw was the case of these gentle suggesters, and all the return they had for the civility of their application.” Animated by this spirit, which we are far from thinking candid or expedient, Mr. Blackburne published “An Apology,” for the “Free and candid disquisitions,” to which, whatever might be its superior boldness to the “milky phraseology” of Mr. Jones, he yet did not venture to put his name nor, although he was suspected to be the author, did he meet with any of that “arrogance,” which is attributed to those who declined adopting Mr. Jones’s scheme of church-reformation. On the contrary, in July, 1750, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Cleveland, and in August following to the prebend of Bilton, by Dr. Matthew Hutton, archbishop of York, to whom he had been for some years titular chaplain and when his friends intimated their suspicions that he would write no more “Apologies” for such books as “Free and candid Diquisitions,” he answered, “with a cool indifference,” that he had made no bargain with the archbishop for his liberty. His next publication, accordingly, was an attack on Dr. Butler bishop of Durham’s charge to his clergy in 1751, which, in Mr. Blackburne’s opinion, contained some doctrines diametrically opposite to the principles on which the protestant reformation was founded. This appeared in 1752, under the title of “A Serious Enquiry into the use and importance of external religion, &c.” but was not generally known to be his, until Mr. Baron, an enthusiast in controversies, republished it with Mr. Blackburne’s name, in his collection, entitled “The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken.”

His next publications were on the subjects of the new style Archdeacon Sharpe’s charges the Jew naturalization-bill a letter to archbishop Herring, on church reformation none of which require much notice. When in 1755, Dr. Law’s notion appeared concerning the soul and the state of death, or what was called “the soul-sleeping system,” Mr. Blackburne adopted, and defended it in a tract entitled “No proof in the Scriptures of an intermediate state of happiness or misery, between death and the resurrection,” and he urged the same opinion in a subsequent tract but as the Confessional is the publication on which his fame principally rests, the history of it is more interesting than any detail of his minor tracts. On Commencement Sunday 1757, Dr. Powell, an eminent tutor of St. John’s college, Cambridge, published a sermon on subscription to the Liturgy and XXXIX articles, in which he maintained that a latitude was allowed to subscribers, even, so far as to admit of the assent and conserit of different persons to different and even opposite opinions, according to their different interpretations of the propositions to be subscribed. Dr. Powell’s casuistry on the subject appeared to Mr. Blackburne so detestable, and so subversive of the principles of good faith among men, that he determined to expose and refute it to the best of his power, and accordingly published “Remarks on the rev. Dr. Powell’s Sermon in defence of Subscriptions, &c.” 1758. His sentiments on the subject of subscriptions are thus explained, in that part of his life which was written by himself. "When he took possession of the living of Richmond, he had been engaged in a way of life that did not give him time or opportunity to reflect upon subjects of that nature with precision; and though, upon taking his first preferment, he determined conscientiously to perform the duties of it, yet he was by no means aware of the difficulties that afterwards embarrassed him in qualifying himself for holding it. He, therefore, then subscribed as directed by law, without scruple, and without apprehending the obligation he laid himself under, according to the form, of giving his assent and consent to the whole system of the church. When the same form was to be subscribed to qualify him. to hold the archdeaconry and prebend, he consulted some of his friends, and particularly Dr. Law (afterwards bishop of Carlisle), who gave him his opinion at large, containing such reasons, as had occurred to himself on the several occasions he had to undergo that discipline. He was likewise referred to Dr. Clarke’s Introduction to his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity and lastly, to the sixth article of the church of England all which appeared plausible enough to satisfy him, for that time, that with these salvos and modifications, he might safely subscribe to the prescribed forms. Some time afterwards, however, upon a prospect of farther advancement to a considerable preferment, he took occasion to re-consider these arguments, and thought they fell short of giving that satisfaction which an honest man would wish to have, when he pledges his good faith to society in so solemn a form as that prescribed by the 36th canon, enjoining subscription to the articles and liturgical forms of the church of England.

“In this situation of mind, he set himself to examine into the rise and progress of this requisition in protestant churches, and into the arguments brought in defence, or rather in excuse of it the result of which was the compilation since known by the name of the * Confessional, or a full and free enquiry into the right, utility, and success of establishing Confessions of Faith and Doctrine in Protestant churches.' This work lay by him in manuscript for some years. He had communicated his plan to Dr. Edmund Law, who encouraged him greatly in the progress of it, and appears by many letters in the course of their correspondence to have been extremely impatient to have it published. The fair copy, however, was never seen by any of the author’s acquaintance, one confidential friend excepted, who spoke of its existence and contents to the late patriotic Thomas Hollis, esq. to whom the author at this time was not personally known. Mr. Hollis mentioned this manuscript to Mr. Andrew Millar, the bookseller, who in 1763, intending a summer excursion to visit his friends in Scotland, was desired by Mr. Hollis to call upon Mr. Blackburne at Richmond, where, after some conversation, the manuscript was consigned to Mr. Millar’s care for publication, and accordingly came out in the spring of 1766. The only condition made with Mr. Millar was, that the author’s name should be concealed.”

Such is the author’s account of the origin of this celebrated work, which soon gave rise to a controversy of considerable length. We follow him with more reluctance in his account of its reception, in which he states that grievous offence was taken at it by that part of the clergy “who affect to call themselves orthodox” and archbishop Seeker is stated to have thrown off his mask of moderation at once. More calm reasoners, however, at this later period may be of opinion, that many of the opponents of the Confessional stood in no need of affectation to indicate the class to which they belonged and that the archbishop, as well as many of his brethren, might think themselves amply justified in considering the Confessional, as having a tendency to render the principles of the church of England a series of private opinions ending in ho general system, and affording encouragement to perpetual fluctuation and indecision, under pretence of regard for conscience. Nor, as the press was to be the medium of this controversy, can we, upon any principles of candour, conceive, why archbishop Seeker, or any of his brethren, should be censured for encouraging the best writers they could find.

This controversy lasted from 1766, the period of publishing the first edition of the Confessional, to 1779, when it was in part revived, or rather continued (for it had never been entirely dropt), in consequence of an application made to parliament for relief in the matter of subscription. During this time, between seventy and eighty pamphlets were published by the contending parties, of which not above ten or twelve appeared with the authors’ names. Some of these are supposed to have been furnished by Mr. Blackburne. One singular effect followed the first publication of the Confessional. It was supposed that the author of such a work could not possibly remain in the church after having made so many objections to her constitution and accordingly a congregation of dissenters in London sent a deputation to him, to know whether he was inclined to accept the situation of their pastor. But whatever objections the learned archdeacon had to certain points of discipline and doctrine peculiar to the church of England, which he wished to be reformed he never conceived that the best way to bring about such a reformation was to leave her entirely in the hands of those who were adverse to it and therefore, although he abstained from any open opposition to the principles and conduct of Mr. Lindsey and Dr. Disney (both his relations and friends), he does not appear to have approved either. His own words, however, will best illustrate his sentiments on this delicate subject;

“Mr. Blackburne had his objections to the liturgy and articles of the church of England, as well as Mr. Lindsey, and in some instances to the same passages, but differed widely from him on some particular points, which, he thought, as stated by Mr. Lindsey and his friends, could receive no countenance from scripture, unless by a licentiousness of interpretation that could not be justified. But Dr. Priestley and some of his friends having carried the obligation to secede from the church of England farther than Mr. Blackburne thought was either sufficiently candid, charitable, or modest, and had thereby given countenance to the reproach, thrown upon many moderate and worthy men, by hot and violent conformists, for continuing to minister in the church, while they disapproved many things in her doctrine and discipline, he thought it expedient, in justice to himself and others of the same sentiments, to give some check to the crude censures that had been passed upon them. And, accordingly, intending to publish ' Four Discourses’ delivered to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Cleveland, in the years 1767, 1769, 1771, and 1773, he took that opportunity to explain himself on this subject in a preface, as well on behalf of the seceders, as of those whose Christian principles admitted of their remaining in the church without offering violence to their consciences.” Of Dr. Priestley’s conduct he speaks yet more decidedly in a letter dated Jan. 4, 177O, to a dissenting minister, “I cannot think the dissenters will be universally pleased with Dr. Priestley’s account of their principles, not to mention that some degree of mercy seemed to be due to us, who have shown our benevolence to all protestant dissenters, and have occasionally asserted their rights of conscience with the utmost freedom. But no, it seems nothing will do but absolute migration from our present stations, in agreement with our supposed convictions though, perhaps, it might puzzle Dr. Priestley to find us another church, in which all of us would be at our ease, &c.” On the secession of Dr. Disney from the church, a circumstance which appears to have given him great uneasiness, he went so far as to draw up a paper under the title “An Answer to the Question, Why are you not a Socinian r” but this, although now added to his works, was not published in his life-time, from motives of delicacy. He had been suspected, from his relationship and intimacy with Mr. Lindsey and Dr. Disney, of holding the same sentiments with them, and his object in the above paper was to vindicate his character in that respect. Still, as it did not appear in his life-time, it could not answer that purpose, and although we are now told that some time before his death, he explicitly asserted to his relation, the Rev. Mr. Comber, his belief in the divinity of Christ, the suspicions of the public had undoubtedly some foundation in the silence which in all his writings he preserved respecting a point of so much importance. When considerably advanced in years, he formed the design of writing the life of Luther and had made some collections for the purpose, hut was diverted from it by being engaged to draw up a work of far less general interest, the Memoirs of Mr. Thomas Hollis. In 1787, he performed his thirty-eighth visitation in Cleveland, after which he was taken ill at the house of his friend the Rev. William Comber, but reached home a few weeks before his death, which took place Aug. 7, 1787, in his eightythird year. Mr. Blackburne left a widow (who died Aug. 20, 1799), and four children, Jane, married to the Rev. Dr. Disney the Rev. Francis Blackburne, vicar of Brignal, near Greta-bridge, Yorkshire Sarab, married to the Rev. John Hall, vicar of Chew Magna, and rector of Dundry in Somersetshire and William Blackburne, M. D. of Cavendish square, London.

, esq. of Orford, near Warrington in Lancashire, deserves some notice in a work of this description, as a promoter of science. This gentleman died in 1786, at the advanced age of ninety-six, the reward of a very regular and temperate life, and a mind undisturbed by any violent emotions. His health and tranquillity were also not a little promoted by the turn he took in early life to the cultivation of plants. He was supposed to be the second gentleman in England who cultivated the pine-apple, and his garden always continued one of the chief objects of botanical curiosity for its products both foreign and domestic, in the north of England. Of this a catalogue was printed by his gardener, Mr. Neal, in 1779. He retained his faculties in very considerable perfection till within two or three years before his death. He was exemplary in the discharge of religious duties, and in charity to the poor. His daughter Anna, who died, advanced in years, in 1794, was also attached to scientific pursuits, particularly natural history, of which she formed a very extensive museum at her seat at Fairfield near Warrington. She was equally fond of botany, and was the friend and constant correspondent of Linnæus and many other celebrated botanists on the continent and at home. A plant which she discovered, Linnæus named in honour of her, Blackburniana. She bequeathed her museum to her nephew John Blackburne, esq. M. P. for Lancashire.

, a very extraordinary poet, was born in 1721, at Annan in the county of Dumfries, in Scotland. His parents were natives of Cumberland, of the lower order, but industrious and well-informed. Before he was six months old he lost his sight by the small-pox, and therefore, as to all purposes of memory or imagination, may be said never to have enjoyed that blessing. His father and friends endeavoured to lessen the calamity by reading to him those books which might convey the instruction suitable to infancy, and as he advanced, they proceeded to others which he appeared to relish and remember, particularly the works of Spenser, Milton, Prior, Pope, and Addison. And such was the kindness which his helpless situation and gentle temper excited, that he was seldom without some companion who carried on this singular course of education, until he had even acquired some knowledge of the Latin tongue. It is probable that he remembered much of all that was read to him, but his mind began very early to make a choice. He first discovered a predilection for English poetry, and then, at the age of twelve, endeavoured to imitate it in various attempts, one of which is preserved in his works, but rather with a view to mark the commencement than the perfection of his talent.

In this manner his life appears to have passed for the first nineteen years, at the end of which he had the misfortune to lose his father, who was killed by the accidental fall of a malt-kiln. For about a year after this, he continued to live at home, and began to be noticed as a young man of genius and acquirements, such as were not to be expected in one in his situation. His poems, which had increased in number as he grew up, were now handed about in manuscript, with confidence that they were worthy of the attention of the discerning, and some of them having been, shewn to Dr. Stevenson, an eminent physician of Edinburgh, he formed the benevolent design of removing the author to that city, where his genius might be improved by a regular education. He came accordingly to Edinburgh in the year 1741, and continued his studies in the university, under his kind patron, till the year 1745. In 1746 a volume of his poems, in octavo, was published, but with what effect we are not told. The rebellion, however, which then raged in Scotland, disturbed arts and learning, and our author returned to Dumfries, where he found an asylum in the house of Mr. M'Murdo, who had married his sister, and who, by company and conversation, endeavoured to amuse his solitude, and keep up his stock of learning. At the close of the rebellion he returned to Edinburgh, and pursued his studies for six years longer.

He now obtained the acquaintance of Hume, the celebrated historian, who interested himself with great zeal in his behalf, and among other services, promoted the publication of the quarto edition of his poems in 1756; but previously to this a second edition of the octavo had been published at Edinburgh in 1754. In this last mentioned year he became known to the Rev. Joseph Spence, poetry professor of Oxford, who introduced him to the English public by “An Account of the Life, Character, and Poems of Mr. Blacklock, student of philosophy in the university of Edinburgh.” In this pamphlet Mr. Spence detailed the extraordinary circumstances of his education and genius with equal taste and humanity, and a subscription was immediately opened at Dodsley’s shop for a quarto edition, to be published at a guinea the large, and half a guinea the small paper.

His occupations aud disposition at this period of his life are thus related by the rev. Mr. Jameson, of Newcastle, who knew him intimately.

To this his elegant biographer adds “All those who ever acted as his amanuenses, agree in this rapidity and ardour of composition which Mr. Jameson ascribes to him in the account I have copied above. He never could dictate till he stood up; and as his blindness made walking about without assistance inconvenient or dangerous to him, he fell insensibly into a vibratory sort of motion of his body, which increased as he warmed with his subject, and was pleased with the conceptions of his mind. This motion at last became habitual to him, and though he could sometimes restrain it when on ceremony, or in any public appearance, such as preaching, he felt a certain uneasiness from the effort, and always returned to it when he could indulge it without impropriety.”

In the same year, he published “Paraclesis or consolations deduced from natural and revealed Religion in two dissertations the first, supposed to have been composed by Cicero now rendered into English the last originally written by Dr. Blacklock.” The plan of the original dissertation is to prove the superiority of the consolations to be derived from the Christian revelation: but it is painful to find by his preface that his motive for writing it, was “to alleviate the pressure of repeated disappointments to sooth his anguish for the loss of departed friends, to elude the rage of implacable and unprovoked enemies; in a word, to support his own mind, which, for a number of years, besides its literary difficulties, and its natural disadvantages, had maintained an incessant conflict with fortune.” Of what nature his disappointments were, or who could be implacable enemies to such a man, we are not told. His biographer, indeed, informs us that he “had from nature a constitution delicate and nervous, and his mind, as is almost always the case, was in a great degree subject to the indisposition of his body. He frequently complained of a lowness and depression of spirits, which neither the attentions of his friends, nor the unceasing care of a most affectionate wife, were able entirely to remove.” Let us hope, therefore, for the honour of mankind, that his complaints were those, not of a man who had enemies, but of one who was sensible that, with strong powers of mind, and well-founded consolations, he was yet excluded from many of the rational delights of which he heard others speak, and of which, if he formed any idea, it was probably disproportionate and distressing.

Such are the few events of Dr. Blacklock’s life. His character, and the character of his writings, are more interesting, and will probably ever continue to be the subject of contemplation with all who study the human mind, or revere the dispensations of Providence. His perseverance in acquiring so extensive a fund of learning, amidst those privations which seem to barr all access to improvement, is an extraordinary feature in his character, and notwithstanding the kind zeal of the friends who endeavoured to make up for his want of sight by reading to him, many of his attainments must ever remain inexplicable.

With respect to his personal character, his biographer, and indeed all who knew him, have expatiated on the gentleness of his manners, the benignity of his disposition, and that warm interest in. the happiness of others which led him so constantly to promote it in the young people who were committed to his charge. In their society he appeared entirely to forget the loss of sight, and the melancholy which, at other times, it might produce. “He entered,” says his biographer, " with the cheerful playfulness of a young man, into all the sprightly narrative, the sportive fancy, the humorous jest that rose around him. It was a sight highly gratifying to philanthropy, to see how much a mind endowed with knowledge, kindled by genius, and above all, lighted up with innocence and piety, like Blacklock’s, could overcome the weight of its own calamity, and enjoy the content, the happiness, and the gaiety of others. Several of those inmates of Dr. Blacklock’s house retained, in future life, all the warmth of that impression which his friendship at this early period had made upon them and in various quarters of the world he had friends and correspondents from whom no length of time or distance of place had ever estranged him.

“Music, which to the feeling and the pensive, in whatever situation, is a source of extreme delight, but which to the blind must be creative, as it were, of idea and of sentiment, he enjoyed highly, and was himself a tolerable performer on several instruments, particularly on the flute. He generally carried in his pocket a small flageolet , on which he played his favourite tunes; and was not displeased when asked in company to play or to sing them; a natural feeling for a blind man, who thus adds a scene to the drama of his society.”

With regard to his poetry, there seems no occasion to involve ourselves in the perplexities which Mr. Spence first created, and then injudiciously as well as ineffectually endeavoured to explain. The character of his poetry is that of sentiment and reason; his versification is in general elegant and harmonious, and his thoughts sometimes flow with an ardent rapidity that betokerte real genius. But it is impossible to ascribe powers of description to one who had seen nothing to describe; nor of invention to one who had no materials upon which he could operate. Where we find any passages that approach to the description of visible objects, we must surely attribute them to memory. As he had the best English poets frequently read to him, he attained a free command of the language of poetry, both in simple and compound words, and we know that all poets consider those as common property. It is not, therefore, wonderful, that he speaks so often of mountains, valleys, rivers, northathe appropriates to visible objects their peculiar characteristics, all which he must have heard repeated until they became fixed in his memory but as no man pursues long what affords little more than the exercise of conjecture, we are still perplexed to discover what pleasure Mr. Blacklock could take, first in a species of reading which could give him no ideas, and then in a species of writing in which he could copy, only the expressions of others. He has himself written a very long article on blindness in the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it affords no light to the present subject, containing chiefly reflections on the disadvantages of blindness, and the best means of alleviating them. His poems, however, especially where attempts are made at description, indicate powers which seem to have wanted the aid of sight only to bring them into the highest rank. We know that poetical genius is almost wholly independent of learning, and seems often planted in a soil where nothing else will flourish, but Blacklock’s is altogether an extraordinary case we have not even tertns by which we can intelligibly discuss his merits, and we may conclude with Denina in his Discorso della Literatura, that Blacklock will appear to posterity a fable, as to us he is a prodigy. It will be thought a fiction, a paradox, that a man blind from his infancy, besides having made himself so much a master of various foreign languages, should be a great poet in his own and without having hardly ever seen the light, should be so remarkably happy in description.

, physician to king William III. and queen Anne, and a very voluminous writer, was son of Mr. Robert Blackmore, an attorney at law. He received the first part of his education at a country school, from whence he was removed to Westminster in the thirteenth year of his age. He was afterwards sent to St. Edmund’shall, in the university of Oxford, where he continued thirteen years. He is said to have been engaged for some time in the profession of a school -master but it is probable he did not long continue in that situation and, says Dr. Johnson, to have been once a schoolmaster, is the only reproach which all the perspicacity of malice, animated by wit, has ever fixed upon his private life. It appears that he travelled afterwards into Italy, and took the degree of doctor in physic, at the university of Padua. He also visited France, Germany, and the Low Countries, and having spent about a year and a half abroad, he returned again to England. On his arrival in London, he engaged in the practice of physic there, and was chosen, fellow of the royal college of physicians. He early discovered his attachment to the principles of the revolution; and this circumstance, together with the eminence which he had attained in his profession, recommended him to the notice and favour of king William. Accordingly, in 1697, he was appointed one of his majesty’s physicians in ordinary he had also a gold medal and chain bestowed on him by that prince, and received from him the honour of knighthood. Upon the king’s death, he was one of the physicians who gave their opinions at the opening of his majesty’s body. When queen Anne ascended the throne, he was appointed one of her physicians, and continued in that station for some time. Sir Richard Blackmore was the author of a variety of pieces both in prose and verse and the generality of his productions had many admirers in his own time for the third edition of his “Prince Arthur, an heroic poem in ten books,” was published in 1696, fol. The following year he also published in folio “King Arthur, an heroic poem, in twelve books.” In 1700 he published in folio, in verse, “A Paraphrase on the book of Job as likewise on the songs of Moses, Deborah, David on four select Psalms some chapters of Isaiah and the third chapter of Habbakuk.” He appears to have been naturally of a very serious turn, and therefore took great offence at the licentious and immoral tendency of many of the productions of his contemporary authors. To pass a censure upon these was the design of his poem, entitled “A Satire upon Wit,” or rather the abuse of it, which was first published in 1700. But this piece was attacked and ridiculed by many different writers, and there seemed to be a kind of confederacy of the wits against him. How much, however, they felt his reproof, appears from the following circumstance. In Tom Brown’s works are upwards of twenty different satirical pieces in verse against Blackmore, said to be written by colonel Codrington, sir Charles Sedley, colonel Blount, sir Samuel Garth, sir Richard Steele, Dr. Smith, Mr. William Burnaby, the earl of Anglesea, the countess of Sandwich, Mr. Manning, Mr. Mildmay, Dr. Drake, colonel Johnson, Mr. Richard Norton, &c. and most of these pieces are particularly levelled at our author’s “Satire upon Wit.” One topic of abuse against Blackmore was, that he lived in Cheapside. He was sometimes called the “Cheapside Knight,” and the “City Bard;” and Garth’s verses, in the collection just cited, are addressed “to the merry Poetaster at Sadlers Hall in Cheapside.” In Gibber’s lives we are also told, that “sir Richard had, by the freedom of his censures on the libertine writers of his age, incurred the heavy displeasure of Dryden, who takes all opportunities to ridicule him, and somewhere says, that he wrote to the rumbling of his chariot-wheels. And as if to be at enmity with Blackmore had been hereditary to our greatest poets, we find Mr. Pope taking up the quarrel where Dryden left it, and persecuting this worthy man with yet a severer degree of satire. Blackmore had been informed by Curl, that Mr. Pope was the author of a Travestie on the first Psalm, which he takes occasion to reprehend in his ‘ Essay on PoJite Learning,’ vol. II. p. 270. He ever considered it as the disgrace of genius, that it should be employed to burlesque any of the sacred compositions, which, as they speak the language of inspiration, tend to awaken the soul to virtue, and inspire it with a sublime devotion.”

On the 16th of November 1713, he began a paper, printed three times a week, called the “Lay Monk.” Only forty numbers of it were published, which, in 1714, were collected into a volume, under the title of the “Lay Monastery.” The Friday’s papers in this collection were written by Hughes, and the rest by sir Richard. In a letter to Mr. Hughes, he declared that he was not determined to the undertaking by a desire of fame or profit, hut from a regard to the public good. In 1716, he published in 2 vols. 8vo, “Essays upon several subjects,” and in 1718, “A collection of poems,” in 1 vol. 8vo. But the work which procured him the greatest reputation, was his “Creation, a philosophical poem, demonstrating the Existence and Providence of a God, in seven books.” This passed through several editions, and was greatly applauded by Mr. Addison. Mr. Locke also formed a very favourable opinion of sir Richard Blackmore; although perhaps he estimated his poetical talents too highly. In 1721, our author published in 12mo, “A new version of the Psalms of David, fitted to the tunes used in churches.” This was recommended by public authority, as proper to be used in the churches and chapels of England, but it does not appear to have been generally adopted. Towards the close of his life, his practice as a physician is said to have declined which might probably arise from the numerous attempts which were made to lessen his reputation. He died on the 8th of October, 1729, in an advanced age; and manifested in his last illness the same fervent piety, which had distinguished him in his life. He was certainly a man of considerable learning and abilities, and a most zealous advocate for the interests of religion and virtue. He wrote, indeed, too much, and was deficient in point of taste nor did he take sufficient time to polish his compositions. But he was far from being destitute of genius; and it is sufficiently manifest, that it was not his dullness, which excited so much animosity against him. Hardly any author has ever been more satirized than sir Richard Blackmore, and yet, so far as we can judge from his writings, there have been few, perhaps none, who have had better intentions. He had very just ideas of the true ends of writing and it would have been happy for the world, if such ideas had been adopted by, and really influenced, authors of more brilliant genius. And though his historical and epic poems exposed him to some degree of ridicule, yet he was far from being a proper object of the extreme contempt with which he was treated. The merit of his poem on Creation, and the excellency of his life, might have procured him better usage. And whatever were the defects of his compositions, he was justly entitled to commendation for the morality of their tendency. He who labours to reform mankind is more deserving of our esteem, than he who would corrupt them, whatever may be the powers of genius possessed by the latter, or whatever reputation his wit may have procured him. The fashion of the times, or the mutual jealousies and animosities of contemporary wits and authors, often occasion great injustice to be done to worthy men and useful writers. But time will, generally, in a great degree, remove such prejudices; and those who form an impartial estimate of the character and various productions of Blackmore, will acknowledge, that as a writer, with all his faults, he had considerable merit; that as a man, he was justly entitled to great applause. For, numerous as his enemies and opponents were, they seem to have been incapable of fixing the least imputation upon his character; and those who personally knew him spoke highly of his virtues. We think it an act of justice to endeavour to remove from a worthy man some part of that load of obloquy with which his memory has been overwhelmed. To this character, from the Biog. Britannica, we may add, that Dr. Johnson has increased the number of those liberal-minded men who have endeavoured to rescue sir Richard Blackmore’s name from the contempt with which it has been treated, and to do justice to his abilities as well as his virtues. To his “Creation” the doctor has given high praise, and has drawn the character of it with singular precision and elegance. From the inaccuracy with which Blackmore in his poems has pronounced the ancient, names of nations or places, Dr. Johnson has inferred, that the thirteen years he spent at the university, seem to have passed with very little attention to the business of the place. A strong testimony, however, to his diligence whilst at Edmund-hall, has lately been produced in the Gentleman’s Magazine, from Turner’s “Book of Providence.” “Dr. Richard Blackmore,” says Turner, “my contemporary and colleague (fellow collegian) at Oxon, now living, and one of the college in London, was, in his first years, one of the most eager and diligent students I ever knew sitting up at his book till twelve, one, two, and sometimes three o'clock in the morning, and then lying down only upon his chairs till prayer-time, till his health broke, and he was constrained by necessity to retire into the country, to repair himself by physic.”

1721, 8vo. 3. “King Alfred, in twelve books,” 1723, 8vo. 4. “History of the Conspiracy against king William the Third,” 1723, 8vo, 5. “A discourse on the Plague, with a preparatory account of malignant fevers, in two parts containing an explication of the nature of those diseases, and the methods of cure,” 1720, 8vo. 6. “A treatise on the Small-pox, in two parts and a dissertation upon the modern practice of Inoculation,” 1722, 8vo. 7. “A treatise on Consumptions and other distempers belonging to the breast and lungs,” 1724, 8vo, 8. “A treatise on the Spleen and Vapours, or hypochonclriacal and hysterical affections; with three discourses on the nature and cure of the Cholic, Melancholy, and Palsy,” 1725, 8vo. 9. “A critical dissertation upon the Spleen,” 1725. 10. “Discourses on the Gout, Rheumatism, and the King’s Evil,” 1726, 8vo. 11. “Dissertations on a Dropsy, a Tympany, the Jaundice, the Stone, and the Diabetes,” 1727, 8vo. 12. “Just prejudices against the Arian hypothesis,” 1725, 8vo. 13. “Modern Arians unmasked,” 1721, 8vo. 14. “Natural Theology, or moral Duties considered apart from positive: with some observations on the desirableness and necessity of a supernatural revelation,” 1728, 8vo. 15. “The accomplished Preacher; or, an essay upon divine eloquence,” 1731, 8vo. This last piece was published after the author’s death, in pursuance of his express order, by the rev. Mr. John White, of Nayland, in Essex who attended sir Richard during his last illness, and bore testimony to the elevated piety with which he prepared for his approaching dissolution.

, knight, and LL. D. an illustrious English lawyer, was born July 10, 1723, in Cheapside, in the parish of St. Michael-le-Querne, at the house of his father, Mr. Charles Blackstone, a silkman, and citizen and bowyer of London, who was the third son of Mr. John Blackstone, an eminent apothecary, in Newgate-street, descended from a family of that name in the west of England, at or near Salisbury. His mother was Mary, eldest daughter of Lovelace Bigg, esq. of Chilton Foliot, in Wiltshire. He was the youngest of four children, of whom, John died an infant, Charles, the eldest, and Henry, the third, were educated at Winchester-school, under the care of their uncle Dr. Bigg, warden of that society, and were afterwards both fellows of New college, Oxford. Charles became a fellow of Winchester, and rector of Wimering, in Hampshire; and Henry, after having practised physic for some years, went into holy orders, and died in 1778, rector of Adderbury, in Oxfordshire, a living in the gift of New-college. Their father died some months before the birth of the subject of this article, and their mother died before he was twelve years old. from his birth, the care both of his education and fortune was kindly undertaken by his maternal uncle, Mr. Thomas Bigg, an eminent surgeon in London, and afterwards, on the death of his eldest brothers, owner of the Chilton estate, which, if we mistake not, is still enjoyed by that family. The affectionate care of this uncle, in giving all his nephews a liberal education, supplied the great loss they had so early sustained, and compensated, in a great degree, for their want of more ample fortunes, and it was always remembered by them with the sincerest gratitude. In 1730, being about seven years of age, he was put to school at the Charter-house, and in 1735 was, by the nomination of sir Robert Walpole, on the recommendation of Charles Wither, of Hall, in Hampshire, esq, his cousin by the mother’s side, admitted upon the foundation.

In this excellent seminary he applied himself to every branch of youthful education, with the same assiduity which accompanied his studies through life. His talents and industry rendered him the favourite of his masters, who encouraged and assisted him with the utmost attention; so that at the age of fifteen he was at the head of the school, and, although so young, was thought well qualified to be removed to the university and he was accordingly entered a commoner at Pembroke college, Oxford, ISov. 30, 1738, and was the next day matriculated. At this time he was elected to one of the Charter-house exhibitions, by the governors of that foundation, to commence from the Michaelmas preceding, but was permitted to continue a scholar there till after the 12th of December, being the anniversary commemoration of the founder, to give him an opportunity of speaking the customary oration, which he had prepared, and which did him much credit. About this time, also, he obtained Mr. Benson’s gold prize medal of Milton, for verses on that poet. Thus, before he quitted school, his genius received public marks of approbation and reward; and so well pleased was the society of Pembroke college with their young pupil, that, in the February following, they unanimously elected him to one of lady Holford’s exhibitions for Charter-house scholars in that house.

Here he prosecuted his studies with unremitting ardour, and, although the classics, and particularly the Greek and Roman poets, were his favourites, they did not entirely engross his attention logic, mathematics, and the other sciences were not neglected. From the first of these, (studied rationally, abstracted from the jargon of the schools), he laid the foundation of that close method of reasoning for which he was so remarkable and from the mathematics, he not only reaped the b'iiiefit of using his mind to a close investigation of every subject that occurred to him, till he arrived at the degree of demonstration which the nature of it would admit, but converted that dry study, as it is usually thought, into an amusement, by pursuing the branch of it which relates to architecture. This science he was peculiarly fond of, and made himself so far master of it, that at the early age of twenty, he compiled a treatise entitled “Elements of Architecture,” intended for his own use only, and not for publication, but esteemed by those judges who have perused it, in no respect unworthy of his maturer judgment, and more exercised pen.

The first years of a counsel’s attendance on the courts afford little matter proper to be inserted in a narrative of this kind and he, in particular, not being happy in a graceful delivery, or a flow of elocution, (both of which he much wanted), nor having any powerful friends or connexions to recommend him, made his way very slowly, and acquired little notice and little practice yet he then began to lay in that store of knowledge in the law which he has since communicated to the world, and contracted an acquaintance with several of the most eminent men in that profession, who saw through the then intervening cloud, those talents which afterwards were exerted with so much splendour.

The late duke of Wharton, who had engaged himself by bond to defray the expence of building the apartments between the library and common room, being obliged soon after to leave his country, and dying in very distressed circumstances, the discharge of this obligation was long despaired of. It happened, however, in a course of years, that his grace’s executors were enabled to pay his debts; when, by the care and activity of Mr. Blackstone, the building was completed, the college thereby enabled to make its demand, and the, whole benefaction recovered. In May 1749, as a small reward for his services, and to give him further opportunities of advancing the interests of the college, he was appointed steward of their manors and in the same year, on the resignation of his uncle Seymour Richmond, esq. he was elected recorder of the borough of Wallingford, in Berkshire, and received the king’s approbation on the 30th of May.

After having attended the courts in Westminster-hall for seven years, and finding the profits of his profession very inadequate to the expence, in the summer of 1753, he determined to retire to his fellowship and an academical life, still continuing the practice of his profession, as a provincial counsel. He had previously planned, what he now began to execute, his “Lectures on the Laws of England,” a work which has so justly signalized his name. In the ensuing Michaelmas term he entered on his new province of reading these lectures; which, even at their commencement, such were the expectations formed from the acknowledged abilities of the lecturer, were attended by a very crowded class of young men of the first families, characters, and hopes. In July, 1755, he was appointed one of the delegates of the Clarendon press. On his entering on this office, he discovered many abuses which required correction; and much mismanagement which demanded new and effectual regulations. In order to obtain a thorough insight into the nature of both, he made himself master of the mechanical part of printing and to promote and complete a reform, he printed a letter on the subject, addressed to Dr. Randolph, then vice-chancellor. This and his other endeavours produced the desired effect; and he had the pleasure of seeing, within the course of a year, the reform he had proposed, carried into execution. About a year before this, he published “An Analysis of the Laws of England,” as a guide to those gentlemen who attended his lectures, on their first introduction to that study; in which he reduced that intricate science to a clear method, intelligible to the youngest student.

Being engaged as counsel in the great contest for knights of the shire for the county of Oxford in 1754-, he very accurately considered a question then much agitated, whether copyholders of a certain nature had a right to vote in county elections? He afterwards reduced his thoughts on that subject into a small treatise; and was prevailed on by sir Charles Mordaunt, and other members of parliament, who had brought in a bill to decide that controverted point, to publish it in March 175H, under the title of “Considerations on Copyholders.” And the bill soon after received the sanction of the legislature, and passed into a law.

Mr. Viner having by his will left not only the copy-right of his abridgement, but other property to a considerable amount, to the university of Oxford, to found a professorship, fellowships, and scholarships of common law, he was on the 20th of October, 1758, unanimously elected Vinerian professor; and on the 25th of the same month read his first introductory lecture; one of the most elegant and admired compositions which any age or country ever produced this he published at the request of the vice-chancellor and heads of houses, and afterwards prefixed to the first volume of his Commentaries. His lectures had now gained such universal applause, that he was requested by a noble personage, who superintended the education of our present sovereign, then prince of Wales, to read them to his royal highness; but as he was at that time engaged to a numerous class of pupils in the university, he thought he could not, consistently with that engagement, comply with this request, and therefore declined it. But he transmitted copies of many of them for the perusal of his royal highness who, far from being offended at an excuse grounded on so honourable a motive, was pleased to order a handsome gratuity to be presented to him.

In 1759 he published two small pieces merely relative to the university the one entitled, “Reflections on the opinions of Messrs. Pratt, Morton, and Wilbraham, relating to lord Litch field’s Disqualification,” who was then a candidate for the chancellorship the other, “A Case for the opinioji of counsel on the right of the University to make New Statutes.”

In 1766, he resigned, the Vinerian professorship, and the principality of New-inn hall finding he could not discharge the personal duties of the former, consistently with his professional attendance in London, or the delicacy of his feelings as an honest man. Thus was he detached from Oxford, to the inexpressible loss of that university, and the great regret of all those who wished well to the establishment of the study of the law therein. When he first turned his views towards the Vinerian professorship, he had formed a design of settling in Oxford for life he had flattered himself, that by annexing the office of professor to the principality of one of the halls (and perhaps converting it into a college), and placing Mr. Viner’s fellows and scholars under their professor, a society might be established for students of the common law, -similar to that of Trinity hall in Cambridge for civilians. Mr. Viner’s will very much favoured this plan. He leaves to the university “all his personal estate, books, &c. for the constituting, establishing, and endowing one or more fellowship or fellowships, and scholarship or scholarships, in any college or hall in the said university, as to the convocation shall be thought most proper for students of the common law.” But notwithstanding this plain direction to establish them in some college or hall, the clause from the delegates which ratified this designation, had the fate to be rejected by a negative in convocation.

A few weeks before he died, he was applied to by the trustees for executing the will of the late sir George Downing, bart. who had bequeathed a large estate for the endowing a new college in Cambridge, to give his assistance in forming a proper plan for this society, and framing a body of statutes for its regulation. This was a task to which his abilities were peculiarly adapted and it may be difficult to determine, whether the application reflected more, honour on the trustees, or on him. He had mentioned to some of his most intimate friends, his undertaking this business with great pleasure, and seemed to promise himself much satisfaction in the amusement it would afford him but, alas his disorder was then coming on with such hasty strides, that before any thing could be done in it, death put an end to this and all his labours, and left the university of Cambridge, as well as that of Oxford, to lament the loss of Mr. Justice Blackstone. He was buried, by his own direction, in a vault he had built for his family, inliis parish church of St. Peter’s in Wallingford. His neighbour And friend Dr. Barrington, bishop of Landaff, now of Durham, at his own particular request, performed the funeral service, as a public testimony of his personal regard and highest esteem.

His professional abilities need not be dwelt upon. They will be universally acknowledged and admired, as long as his works shall be read, or, in other words, as long as the municipal laws of this country shall remain an object of study and practice and though his works will only hold forth to future generations his knowledge of the law, and his talents as a writer, there was hardly any branch of literature he was unacquainted with. He ever employed much time in reading, and whatever he had read and once digested, he never forgot. He was an excellent manager of his time and although so much of it was spent in an application to books, and the employment of his pen, yet this was done without the parade or ostentation of being a hard student. It was observed of him, during his residence at college, that his studies never appeared to break in upon the common business of life, or the innocent amusements of society; for the latter of which few men were better calculated, being possessed of the happy faculty of making iis own company agreeable and instructive, whilst he enjoyed, without reserve, the society of others. Melancthon himself could not have been more rigid in observing the hour and minute of an appointment. During the years in which he read his lectures at Oxford, it could not be remembered that he had ever kept his audience waiting for him, even for a few minutes. As he valued his own time, he was extremely careful not to be instrumental in squandering or trifling away that of others, who, he hoped, might have as much regard for theirs, as he had for his. Indeed, punctuality was in his opinion so much a virtue, that he could not bring himself to think favourably of any who were notoriously defective in it.

The virtues of his private character, less conspicuous in their nature, and consequently less generally known, endeared him to those he was more intimately connected with, and who saw him in the more retired scenes of life. He was, notwithstanding his contracted brow (owing in a great measure to his being very near-sighted), a cheerful, agreeable, and facetious companion. He was a faithful friend, an affectionate husband and parent, and a charitable benefactor to the poor *, possessed of generosity, without affectation, bounded by prudence and ceconomy. The constant accurate knowledge he had of his income and expences (the consequence of uncommon regularity in his accounts) enabled him. to avoid the opposite extremes of meanness and profusion.

Being himself strict in the exercise of every public and private duty, he expected the same attention to both in others and, when disappointed in his expectations, was apt to animadvert with some degree of severity on those who, in his estimate of duty, seemed to deserve it. This rigid sense of obligation, added to a certain irritability of temper, derived from nature, and increased in his latter years by a strong nervous affection, together with his countenance and figure, conveyed an idea of sternness, which occasioned the unmerited imputation, among those who did not know him, of ill-nature but he had a heart as benevolent and as feeling as man ever possessed. A natural reserve and diffidence which accompanied him from his earliest youth, and which he could never shake off, appeared to a casual observer, though it was only appearance, like pride especially after he became a judge, when he thought it his duty to keep strictly up to forms (which, as he was wont to observe, are now too much laid aside), and not to lessen the respect due to the dignity and gravity of his office, by any outward levity of behaviour.

Mr. Blackwall, in his seminaries at Derby and Bosworth, had the felicity of bringing up a number of excellent scholars besides Mr. Dawes. Among these was sir Henry Atkins, bart. who, being patron of the church of Clapharn. in Surrey, as a mark of his gratitude and esteem, presented our author, on the 12th of October, 1726, to that rectory, which was then supposed to be worth three hundred pounds a year. The grammar which Mr. Blackwall made use of, for the purpose of initiating the young people under his care into the knowledge of the Latin tongue, was of his own composition; and it was considered as so well adapted to that end, that he was prevailed upon to publish it in 1728. Such, however, was his modesty, that it would not permit him to fix his name to it, because he would not be thought to prescribe to other instructors of youth. The title of it is, “A 'New Latin Grammar; being a short, clear, and easy introduction of young scholars to the knowlege of the Latin tongue containing an exact account of the two first parts of grammar.” It is probable, that Mr. Blackwall’s situation at Clapham did not altogether suit his disposition; for, early in 1729, he resigned the rectory of that place, and retired to Market- Bosworth, where his abilities and convivial turn of mind rendered him generally respected. At the school-house of this town he died, ou the 8th of April, 1730. He left behind him two children, a son and a daughter. The son was an attorney at StokeGolding, in the neighbourhood of Bosworth, where he died July 5, 1763; and the daughter was married to a Mr. Pickering.

, an ingenious lady, to whom physic was indebted for the most complete set of figures of the medicinal plants, was the daughter of a merchant of Aberdeen, and born, probably about the beginning of the last century. Her husband, Dr. Alexander Blackwell (brother of Dr. Thomas, the subject of our next article) received an university education, and was early distinguished for his classical knowledge. By some he is said only to have assumed the title of doctor after his successful attendance on the king of Sweden, but the other report is more probable, that when he had regularly studied medicine, he took his degree at Leyden under Boerhaave. Having failed in his attempt to introduce himself into practice, first in Scotland, and afterwards in London, he became corrector of the press for Mr. Wilkins, a printer. After some years spent in this employment, he set up as a printer himself, and carried on several large works, till 1734, when he became bankrupt. To relieve his distresses, Mrs. Blackwell, having a genius for drawing and painting, exerted all her talents: and, understanding that an herbal of medicinal plants was greatly wanted, she exhibited to sir Hans Sloane, Dr. Mead, and other physicians, some specimens of her art in painting plants, who approved so highly of them as to encourage her to prosecute a work, by the profits of which she is said to have procured her husband’s liberty, after a confinement of two years.

Mr. Rand, an eminent apothecary, was at that time demonstrator to the company of apothecaries, in the garden at Chelsea, and by his advice she took up her residence opposite the physic garden, in order to facilitate her design, by receiving the plants as fresh as possible. He not only promoted her work with the public, but, together with Mr. Philip Miller, afforded her all possible direction and assistance in the execution of it. After she had completed the drawings, she engraved them on copper, and coloured the prints with her own hands. During her abode at Chelsea, she was frequently visited by persons of quality, and many scientific people who admired her performances, and patronized her undertaking. On publishing the first volume in 1737, she obtained a recommendation from Dr. Mead, Dr. Sherard, Mr. Rand, and others, to be prefixed to it. And being allowed to present, in person, a copy to the college of physicians, that body made her a present, and gave her a public testimonial of their approbation; with leave to prefix it to her book. The second volume was finished in 1739, and the whole published under the title, “A curious Herbal, containing 500 cuts of the most useful plants whicih are now used in the practice of physic, engraved on folio copperplates, after drawings taken from the life. By Elizabeth Blackwell. To which is added, a short description of the plants, and their common uses in physic,” 2 vols. fo!.

, an ingenious and very learned writer of the last century, was born August 4, 1701, in the city of Aberdeen. His father, the rev. Mr. Thomas Blackwell, was minister of Paisley in Renfrewshire, from whence he was removed in 1700 to be one of the ministers of Aberdeen. He was afterwards elected professor of divinity in the Marischal college of that city, and in 1717 was presented by his majesty to be principal of the college, in both which offices he continued until his death in 1728. His mother’s name was Johnston, of a good family near Glasgow, and sister to Dr. Johnston, who was many years professor of medicine in the university of Glasgow. Our author received his grammatical education at the grammarschool of Aberdeen, studied Greek and philosophy in the Marischal college there, and took the degree of master of arts in 1718; which, as he was at that time only seventeen years of age, must be regarded as a considerable testimony of his early proficiency in literature. A farther proof of it was his being presented, on the 28th of November 1723, by his majesty king George the First, to the professorship of Greek, in the college in which he had been educated. He was admitted into this office on the 13th of December in the same year; and after that continued to teach the Greek language with great applause. His knowledge of that language was accurate and extensive, and his manner of communicating it perspicuous and engaging. He had a dignity of address which commanded the attention of the students, a steadiness in exacting the prescribed exercises which enforced application, and an enthusiasm for the beauties of the ancients, and utility of classical learning, which excited an ardour of study, and contributed much to diffuse a spirit for Grecian erudition far superior to what had taken place before he was called to the professorship. Together with his lessons in the Greek tongue, he gave, likewise, lessons on some of the Latin classics, chiefly with a view to infuse a relish for their beauties. To his zeal and diligence in discharging the duties of his station, it is probable that the world was, in part, indebted for such men as Campbell, Gerard, Reid, Beattie, Duncan, and the Fordyces, who have appeared with so much eminence in the republic of letters. When the celebrated Dr. Berkeley was engaged in the scheme of establishing an American university in the Summer Islands, Mr. Blackwell was in treaty with him for going out as one of his young professors; but the negociation did not take effect. In 1735 was published at London, in octavo, without the name of the bookseller, and without his own name, our author’s “Enquiry into the Life and Writings of Homer” a work, the great ingenuity and learning of which will be acknowledged by all who have perused it. It was embellished with plates, designed by Gravelot, and executed by different engravers. This we apprehend to be the most esteemed, and it is, in our opinion, the most valuable, of Mr. Blackwell’s performances. The second edition appeared in 1736; and, not long after, he published “Proofs of the Enquiry into Homer’s Life and Writings, translated into English being a key to the Enquiry with a curious frontispiece.” This was a translation of the numerous Greek, Latin, Spanish, Italian and French notes which had been subjoined to the original work. In 1748, came out, in London, “Letters concerning Mythology,” in a large octavo, but without the bookseller (Andrew Millar’s) name. On the 7th of October, in the same year, our author was appointed by his late majesty, George II. to be principal of the Marischal college in Aberdeen, and was admitted to the office on the 9th of November following. He continued, also, professor of Greek till his death. He is the only layman ever appointed principal of that college, since the patronage came to the crown, by the forfeiture of the Marischal family in 1716 all the other principals having been ministers of the established church of Scotland. When Robert and Andrew Foulis, printers at Glasgow, intended to publish an edition of Plato, Mr. Blackwell proposed to furnish them with several critical notes for it, together with an account of Plato’s Life and Philosophy but the printers not acceding to the terms which he demanded for this assistance, he promised, by a Latin advertisement in 1751, himself to give an edition of Plato. His design, however, was not carried into execution nor did it appear, from any thing found among his papers after his death, that he had made any considerable progress in the undertaking. On the 3d of March, 1752, he took the degree of doctor of Laws. In the following year, appeared the first volume of his “Memoirs of the Court of Augustus,” in 4to. The second volume came out in 1755 and the third, which was posthumous, and left incomplete by the author, was prepared for the press by John Mills, esq. and published in 1764. At the same time, was published the third edition of the two former volumes. This is a proof of the good reception the work met with from the public, though it must be acknowledged that the parade with which it was written, and the peculiarity of the language, exposed it to some severity of censure, particularly to a most acute, and in some respects humourous, criticism by Dr. Johnson, written for the Literary Magazine, and now inserted in Johnson’s works. It cannot be denied that there is a considerable degree of affectation in Dr. Blackwell’s style and manner of composition and, unhappily, this affectation increased in him as he advanced in years. His “Enquiry into the Life of Homer” was not free from it it was still more discernible in his “Letters concerning Mythology” and was most of all apparent in his “Memoirs of the Court of Augustus.” We perceive in his various productions a mixture of pedantry but it is not the sober dull pedantry of the merely recluse scholar. In Dr. Blackwell it assumes a higher form. Together with the display of his erudition, he is ambitious of talking like a man who is not a little acquainted with the world. He is often speaking of life and action, of men and manners; and aims at writing with the freedom and politeness of one who has been much conversant with the public. But; in this he is unsuccessful: for though he was not destitute of genius or fancy, and had a high relish for the beauties of the ancient authors, he never attained that simplicity of taste, which leads to true ease and elegance in composition. It is probable, also, that, like many others at that time, he might be seduced by an injudicious imitation of lord Shaftesbury; a writer, whose faults have been found more easily attainable than his excellences.

Soon after Dr. Blackwell became principal of his college he married Barbara Black, the daughter of a merchant of Aberdeen, by whom he had no children, and who survived him so late as 1793. Several years before his death, his health began to decline so that he was obliged to employ an assistant for teaching his Greek class. His disorder was of the consumptive kind, and it was thought to be increased by the excess of abstemiousness which he imposed on himself and, in which, notwithstanding all the remonstrances of his physicians, he obstinately persisted, from an opinion of his own knowledge of his constitution, and of what he found by experience to suit it best. His disease increasing, he was advised to travel; and accordingly, in February 1757, he set out from Aberdeen, but was able to go no farther than Edinburgh, in which city he died, on the 8th of March following, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. Dr. Blackwell enjoyed an equable flow of temper, in which his intimate friends scarcely ever observed any variation. This he maintained during his whole illness. The day before he set out from Aberdeen, he desired to meet with all the professors of the college, and spent two hours with them with his usual vivacity. In Edinburgh he was visited, at his own desire, by Dr. Wallace, one of the ministers of that city, whose ingenuity and learning are well known. Dr. Blackwell, on the very day in which he died, wrote letters to several of his friends, and took leave of them with the greatest chee. fulness. In the April following our author’s decease, it being Dr. Gerard’s business, as (at that time) professor of moral philosophy and logic in the Marischal college, to preside at conferring the degree of master of arts on those whose standing entitled them to it, the doctor took that occasion to pronounce publicly, on the late principal, such an encomium as his literature deserved. It was a fault in Dr. Blackwell, that he too much assumed the appearance of universal knowledge; the consequence of which was that he sometimes laid himself open, by entering on subjects of philosophy and mathematics, without a sufficient acquaintance with them. With all the ancient, and with most of the modern languages, he was really acquainted and his reading, in the departments of history and the belles lettres, was very extensive. He had a ready and lively manner of introducing his knowledge of this kind, which made his conversation both instructive and entertaining and it was rendered still more so by being accompanied with great good humour, and an entire command of his passions, even when he was provoked. Though he had something of the stiffness of the recluse, he joined with it much of the confidence and good breeding that are found in men who converse much in the world. His life was private and studious: he did not wholly decline mixed companies, though it was but seldom that he came into them and at home he chose only the conversation of the learned, or that of persons of superior rank or fortune. At London he was known to several men of eminence. The late duke of Newcastle, and Mr. Henry Pelham, were his patrons, and procured for him the office of principal of the Marischal college. It is confidently said that they had intended him an establishment at Cambridge, and that the professorship of modern history was fixed upon for him, if he had not died a short time before it became vacant. A man of Dr. Blackwell’s abilities and reputation could not fail of having some valuable literary connexions and correspondents; among whom he had the honour of numbering the late celebrated Dr. Mead, and the no less celebrated Dr. Warburton, bishop of Gloucester. It is said that Mr. Blackwell, soon after the publication of his Enquiry, being at Cambridge, paid a visit to Dr. Bentley, and the discourse turning upon the book, the doctor, being asked his opinion of it, answered, “That when he had gone through half of it, he had forgotten the beginning; and that, when he had finished the reading of it, he had forgotten the whole.” Whatever truth is in this story, it is certain, at least, that a similar objection had been started by others, if not by Dr. Bentley.

In the first volume of the Archaeologia is a letter, written in 1748, by Dr. Blackwell, to Mr. Ames, containing an explanation of a Greek inscription, on a white marble, found in the isle of Tasso, near the coast of Romania, by captain Joseph Hales, in 1728. As Dr. Blackwell was singular in his style and sentiments, he likewise imbibed some religious opinions, little known at that time in the bosom of the Calvinistic church of Scotland. He was so much a Socinian, that he never read ttie first chapter of St. John in his class, but always began with the second. This on one occasion gave rise to a foolish report respecting his knowledge of Greek, which we shall have occasion to notice in the life of Dv. Gregory Sharpe. His widow, who, as alreadynoticed, died in 1793, bequeathed her estates partly to found a chemical professorship in the college over which her husband had so long presided, and partly for a premium for an English essay, and for the augmentation of the professors’ salaries.

, a learned English writer of the church of Rome, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in the county of Middlesex, and admitted a scholar of Trinity college in Oxford at seventeen years of age, May 27, 1562, probationer in 1565, being then bachelor of arts, perpetual fellow the year following, and master of arts in 1567. But being more inclined to the Roman catholic than the Protestant religion, he left his fellowship, and retired to Gloucester hall, where he continued for some time, and was highly esteemed by Edmund Rainolds and Thomas Allen, two learned seniors of that hall. He afterwards went beyond sea, and spent some time in one of the English seminaries newly erected to receive the exiled English catholics andwas at last in 1598, with the permission of pope Clement VIII. constituted by Henry cardinal Cajetan, protector of the English nation at Rome, and superior of the English clergy, with the authority and name of Archpriest of England, and was appointed by that pope notary of the apostolic see. This affair being resented by the English catholic clergy, especially as they imagined that our author was absolutely under the influence of Henry Garnet, provincial of the Jesuits of England, it occasioned a warm contest between them in England. The Jesuits wrote and spoke against the secular priests in so virulent a manner, as to detract very much from BlackwelPs authority who upon this degraded them of their faculties, so that when they afterwards appealed to the pope, he caused them to be declared in a book schismatics and heretics. They vindicated themselves from this charge, and procured the censure“of the university of Paris in their favour; which was answered by our author. He also declared his abhorrence of the Powder Plot in 1605, and wrote two letters to dissuade the Roman catholics from all violent practices against the king and government. He held the office of archpriest till 1607, when he was succeeded by George Birket. The reason of this change was, because our author having been seized at London June 24 the same year, he was committed to prison, and consequently deprived of the liberty required to act in his office. He was released soon after upon his taking the oath of allegiance. An account of this aft'air was published at London, 1607, in 4to, entitled” The examination of George Blackwell, upon occasion of his answering a letter sent by cardinal Bellarmine, who blamed him for taking the oath of allegiance." He died suddenly January 12, 1612-3, and was buried, as Mr. Wood supposes, in some church in London. He was esteemed by those of his own persuasion, and by others likewise, a man of great learning and piety, and a good preacher.

, professor of civil law at Poictiers, was born at Dumfermling, in Scotland, in 1539, descended of an ancient family. He was left an orphan in the tenth year of his age, and was sent by his uncle, the bishop of Orkney, to the university of Paris. On his uncle’s death, by which he seems to have lost the means of being able to remain at Paris, he returned to Scotland, but finding no encouragement there, he went again to Paris, where, by the liberality of Mary, queen of Scotland, he was enabled to pursue his studies in philosophy, mathematics, and the oriental languages. He then went to the university of Tholouse, where he studied civil law for two years and having obtained the patronage of Beaton, archbishop of Glasgow, he was chosen by the parliament of Poictiers one of their counsellors, and afterwards professor of civil law. He died in 1623, and was interred at Poictiers in St. Porcharius church, near his brother George. As a writer, he was chiefly known for his vindication of his royal mistress, when put to death by queen Elizabeth, written with all that bitterness of resentment which is natural for a man of spirit to feel, who, by an act of flagrant injustice, was deprived of his mistress and his sovereign, his friend and his benefactress. He addresses himself, in a vehement strain of passion, to all the princes of Europe, to avenge her death; declaring, that they are unworthy of royalty, if they are not roused on so interesting and pressing an occasion. He laboured hard to prove that Henry VIII.' s marriage with Anne Bolen was incestuous a calumny too gross to merit a formal refutation. This work was entitled “Martyre de Maria Stuart Reyne d'Escosse,” Antwerp, 1588, 8vo. His other works were, 1. “Adversus G. Buchanani Dialogum de Jure Ilegni apud Scotos, pro regibus apologia,” Pict. 1580, 8vo. 2. “De Vinculo Religionis et Imperii,” Paris, 1575, 8vo. 3. “Sanctarum precationum prsemia,” a manual of devotions, Pict. 1598, 8vo. 4. “Varii generis poemata,” ibid. 1609, 8vo. 5. “Jacobi I. Magnse Britanniae inauguratio,” Paris, 1606, 4to. These and some other pieces by him, were collected and published, with a life, by Gabriel Naudeus, 1644, 4to.

, an eminent printer, and publisher of geographical maps and charts, was born at Amsterdam in 1571, and died there in 1638. He was the scholar and friend of Tycho-Brahe, and applied himself, besides his particular art, to the study of geography and astronomy. When he had formed the design of his celebrated “Atlas,” he gave liberal prices to the most experienced geographers and draughtsmen for original maps, which he procured to be engraved with great care, and all the elegance which the state of the arts in his time could admit. Eager, however, as he was to render this work perfect, as he was obliged to trust to the incomplete and dubious relations of travellers, the work is now valued chierly as a beautiful specimen of engraving, and bears a considerable price, especially when coloured. It was entitled the “Grand Atlas geographique,” or “Theatrum Mundi” and including the celestial and hydrographical maps, forms 14 vols. fol. 1663 67, very little of it having been published in his life-time, but. the whole completed by his sons. He published also, “Instruction astronomique de l'usage des globes et sphere celestes et terrestres,” Amst. 1642, 4to 1669, 4to. There was a neatness in all his publications of this description, which has been rarely imitated. An accidental fire which destroyed the greater part of the first edition of the atlas and of his other works, rendered them for some time in great demand. His “Theatrum urbium et munimentorum,” was another collection of views and maps in much esteem. These and other designs were pursued and completed by his sons John and Cornelius, and, the latter dying young, chiefly by John, who was also the printer of a great many classics, which yield in beauty only to the Elzevirs. Among the geographical works of John Blaeu, are, 1. “Novum ac magnum theatrum civitatum totius Belgiae,” 1649, 2 vols. fol. 2. “Civitates et admirandae Italiae,” 1663, 2 vols. fol. reprinted with a French text, Amst. 1704, 4 vols. fol. and Hague, 1724. 3. “Theatrum Sabaudise et Pedemontii,” 1682, 2 vols. fol. translated and published under the title “Theatre de Piemont e de la Savoie,” by James Bernard, Hague, 1735, 2 vols. fol. Vossius and Grotius speak in high terms of the talents and industry of John and Cornelius Blaeu. It may be noticed that John Blaeu sometimes concealed himself under a fictitious name. His edition of “Erythraei Pinacotheca,” a work to which we have sometimes referred, was published with Cologne in the title page, instead of Amsterdam, and Jodocus Kalcovius, instead of John Blavius, or Blaeu.

, an eminent mathematician, who flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries, was the son of John Blagrave, of Bulmarsh, esq. and was born at Reading, but in what year is not known. He acquired the rudiments of his education at Reading, whence he removed to St. John’s college, Oxford, but soon quitted the university, and retired to Southcote Lodge at Reading, where he devoted his time to study and contemplation. His genius seemed to be turned most to mathematics; and that he might study this science without interruption, he devoted himself to a retired life. He employed himself chiefly in compiling such works as might render speculative mathematics accurate, and the practical parts easy. He accordingly finished some learned and useful works, in all which he proposed to render those sciences more universally understood. He endeavoured to shew the usefulness of such studies, that they were not mere amusements for scholars and speculative persons, but of general advantage, and absolutely indispensable in many of the necessaries and conveniences of life with this view he published the four following works: 1. “A Mathematical Jewel, shewing the making and most excellent use of an instrument so called: the use of which jewel is so abundant, that it leadeth the direct path-way through the whole art of astronomy, cosmography, geography,” &c. 1582, folio. 2. “Of the making and use of the Familiar Staff, so called for that it may be made useful and familiarly to walk with, as for that it performeth the geometrical mensuration of all altitudes,” 1590, 4to. 3. “Astrolabium uranicum generale a necessary and pleasant solace and recreation for navigators in their long journeying containing the use of an instrument, or astrolabe,” &c. 1596, 4to. 4. “The art of Dialling, in two parts.” 1609, 4to.

, D.D. an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was born at Edinburgh, April 7, 1718. His father, John Blair, a respectable merchant in that city, was a descendant of the ancient family of Blair, in Ayrshire, and grandson of the famous Mr. Robert Blair, minister of St. Andrew’s, chaplain to Charles I. and one of the most zealous and distinguished clergymen of the peilod in which he lived. Of the two sons who survived him, David, the eldest, was a clergyman of eminence in Edinburgh, and father to Mr. Robert Blair, minister of Athelstanford, the author of the well-known poem entitled “The Grave.” From his youngest son, Hugh, who engaged in business as a merchant, and had the honour to fill a high station in the magistracy of Edinburgh, the object of the present memoir descended.

Mr. Boswell, in his “Life of Dr. Johnson,” informs us that Dr. Blair transmitted the manuscript of his first volume of sermons to Mr. Strahan, the king’s printer, who, after keeping it for some time, wrote a letter to him, discouraging the publication. Such at first was the unpropitious state of one of the most successful theological books that has ever appeared. Mr. Strahan, however, had sent one of the sermons to Dr, Johnson, for his opinion and after his unfavourable letter to Dr. Blair had been sent off, he received from Johnson on Christmas-eve, 1776, a note in which was the following paragraph “I have read over Dr. Blair’s first sermon with more than approbation to say it is good, is to say too little.” Mr. Strahan had very soon after this time, a conversation with Dr, Johnson concerning them and then he very candidly wrote again to Dr. Blair, enclosing Johnson’s note, and agreeing to purchase the volume, for which he and Mr. Cadell gave one hundred pounds. The sale was so rapid and extensive, and the approbation of the public so high, that, to their honour be it recorded, the proprietors made Dr. Blair a present, first of one sum, and afterwards of another, of fifty pounds; thus voluntarily doubling the stipulated price and when he prepared another volume, they gave him at once three hundred pounds and, we believe, for the others he had six hundred pounds each. A fifth volume was prepared by him for the press, and published after his death, 1801, to which is added a “Short account of his Life” by James Finlayson, D. D. of which we have availed ourselves in the preceding account. The sermons contained in this last volume were composed at very different periods of his life, but were all written out anew in his own hand, and in many parts re-composed, during the course of the summer 1800, after he had completed his eighty-second year.

In April 1748 he married his cousin, Katherine Bannatine, daughter of the rev. James Bannatine, one of the ministers of Edinburgh. By her he had a son, who died in infancy, and a daughter, who lived to her twentyfirst year: Mrs. Blair died a few years before her husband, after she had shared with the tenderest affection in all his fortunes, and contributed near half a century to his happiness and comfort.

Dr. Blair had been naturally of a feeble constitution of body, but, as he grew up, it acquired greater firmness and vigour. Though liable to occasional attacks from some of the sharpest and most painful diseases that afflict the human frame, he enjoyed a general state of good health and, through habitual cheerfulness, temperance, and care, survived the usual term of human life. For some years he felt himself unequal to the fatigue of instructing his very large congregations from the pulpit; and under the impression which this feeling produced, he was heard at times to say, “that he was left almost the last of his contemporaries.” Yet he continued to the end in the regular discharge of all his other official duties, and particularly in giving advice to the afflicted, who, from different quarters of the kingdom, solicited his correspondence. His last summer was devoted to the preparation of the fifth volume of his sermons; and, in the course of it, he exhibited a vigour of understanding, and capacity of exertion, equal to that of his best days. He began the winter pleased with himself, on account of the completion of this work; and his friends were flattered with the hope that he might live to enjoy the accession of emolument and fame which he expected it would bring. But the seeds of a mortal disease were lurking unperceived within him. On the 24th of December 1800, he complained of a pain in his bowels, which, during that and the following day, gave him but little uneasiness; and he received as usual the visits of his friends. On the afternoon of the 26th, the symptoms became violent and alarming he felt that he was approaching the end of his appointed course; and, retaining to the last moment the full possession of his mental faculties, he expired on the morning of the 27th, universally lamented through the city which he had so long instructed and adorned.

was born and bred in Scotland, and ordained and beneficed in the episcopal church there but meeting with some discouragements under an unsettled state of affairs, and having a prospect of discharging his ministerial function more usefully elsewhere, he quitted his preferments, and came into England near the end of Charles the Second’s reign. It was not long before he was taken notice of by Compton, bishop of London, who prevailed with him to go as missionary to Virginia, about 1685 where, by exemplary conduct, and unwearied labours in the work of the ministry, he did good service to religion, and gained to himself a good report amongst all: so that bishop Compton being well apprised of his worth, made choice of him, about 1689, as his commissary for Virginia, the highest office in the church there; which, however, did not take him off from his pastoral care, but only rendered him the more shining example of it to the rest of the clergy.

While his thoughts were intent upon doing good in his office, he observed with concern that the want of schools, and proper seminaries for religion and learning, so impeded all attempts for the propagation of the gospel, that little could be hoped for, without first removing that obstacle. He therefore formed a vast design of erecting and endowing a college in Virginia, at Williamsburgh, the capital of that country, for professors and students in academical learning: in order to which, he had himself set on foot a voluntary subscription, amounting to a great sum and, not content with that, came over into England in 1693, to solicit the affair at court. Queen Mary was so well pleased with the noble design, that she espoused it with a particular zeal and king William also very readily concurred with her in it. Accordingly a patent passed for erecting and endowing a college, by the name of the William and Mary college; and Mr. Blair, who had the principal hand in laying, soliciting, and concerting the design, was appointed president of the college. He was besides rector of Williamsburgh in Virginia, and president of the council in that colony. He continued president of the college near fifty, and a minister of the gospel above sixty years. He was a faithful labourer in God’s vineyard, an ornament to his profession, and his several offices and in a good old age went to enjoy the high prize of his calling, in the year 1743. His works are “Our Saviour’s divine sermon on the mount, explained and the pi-actice of it recommended in divers sermons and discourses,” Lond. 1742, 4vols. 8vo. The executors of Dr. Bray (to whom the author had previously transferred his copy-right) afterwards published a new impression, revised and corrected. Dr. Waterland, who wrote a preface to the new edition, calls these sermons a “valuable treasure of sound divinity and practical Christianity.”

, was educated at Edinburgh, and was, as already noticed, related to Dr. Hugh Blair. He came to London in company with Andrew Henderson, a voluminous writer, who, in his title-pages styled himself A. M. and for some years kept a bookseller’s shop in Westminster-hall. Henderson’s first employment was that of an usher at a school in Hedge-lane, in which he was succeeded by his friend Blair, who, in 1754, obliged' the world with a valuable publication under the title of “The chronology and history of the world, from the creation to the year of Christ 1753. Illustrated in fifty-six tables; of which four are introductory, and contain the centuries prior to the first olympiad; and each of the remaining fifty-two contain in one expanded view fifty years, or half a century. By the rev. John Blair, LL. D.” This volume, which is dedicated to lord chancellor Hardwicke, was published by subscription, on account of the great expence of the plates, for which the author apologized in his preface, where he acknowledged great obligations to the earl of Bath, and announced some chronological dissertations, in which he proposed to illustrate the disputed points, to explain the prevailing systems of chronology, and to establish the authorities upon which some of the particular seras depend. In Dr. Hugh Blair’s life, it has been noticed that this work was partly projected by him. In January 1755, Dr. John Blair was elected F. R. S. and in 1761, F. A. S. In 1756 he published a second edition of his Chronological Tables. In Sept. 1757, he was appointed chaplain to the princess dowager of Wales, and mathematical tutor to the duke of York; and, on Dr. Townshend’s promotion to the deanry of Norwich, the services of Dr. Blair were rewarded, March 10, 1761, with a prebendal stall at Westminster. The vicarage of Hinckley happening to fall vacant six days after, by the death of Dr. Moires, Dr. Blair was presented to it by the dean and chapter of Westminster and in August that year he obtained a dispensation to hold with it the rectory of Burton Goggles, in Lincolnshire. In September 1763, he attended his royal pupil the duke of York in a tour to the continent; had the satisfaction of visiting Lisbon, Gibraltar, Minorca, most of the principal cities in Italy, and several parts of France and returned with the duke in August 1764. In 1768 he published an improved edition of his Chronological Tables, which he dedicated to the princess of Wales, who had expressed her early approbation of the former edition. To the edition were annexed fourteen maps of ancient and modern geography, for illustrating the tables of chronology and history. To which is prefixed a dissertation on the progress of geography. In March 1771 he was presented by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the vicarage of St. Bride’s, in the city of London which made it necessary for him to resign Hinckley, where he had never resided for any length of time. On the death of Mr. Sims, in April 1776, he resigned St. Bride’s, and was presented to the rectorjr of St. John the Evangelist in Westminster and in June that year obtained a dispensation to hold the rectory of St. John with that of Horton, near Colebrooke, Bucks. His brother, captain Blair *, falling gloriously in the service of his country in the memorable sea-fight of April 12, 1782, the shock accelerated the doctor’s death. He had at the same time the influenza in a severe degree, which put a period to his life June 24, 1782. His library was sold by auction December 1113, 1781; and a course of his “Lectures on the canons of the Old Testament,” has since appeared.

, a Scotch divine and poet, was the eldest son of the rev. David Blair, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and chaplain to the king. His grandfather was the rev. Robert Blair, sometime minister of the gospel at Bangor, in Ireland, and afterward at St. Andrew’s, in Scotland. Of this gentleman, some “Memoirs,” partly taken from his manuscript diaries, were published at Edinburgh, in 1754. He was celebrated for his piety, and by those of his persuasion, for his inflexible adherence to presbyterianism, in opposition to the endeavours made in his time to establish episcopacy in Scotland. It is recorded also that he wrote some poems. His grandson, the object of the present article, was born in the year 1699, and after the usual preparatory studies, was ordained minister of Athelstaneford, in the county of East Lothian, where he resided until his death, Feb. 4, 1747. The late right hon. Robert Blair, president of the court of session in. Scotland, who died in 1811, was one of his sons, and the late celebrated Dr. Hugh Blair, professor of rhetoric and belles-lettres, was his cousin.

Such are the only particulars handed down to us respecting the writer of “the Grave.” It is but lately that the poem was honoured with much attention, and appears to have made its way very slowly into general notice. The pious and congenial Hervey was among the first who praised it. Mr. Pinkerton in his “Letters of Literature,” published under the name of Heron, endeavoured to raise it far above the level of common productions, and it has of late years been frequently reprinted but it may be questioned whether it will bear a critical examination. It has no regular plan, nor are the reflections on mortality embellished bj any superior graces. It is perhaps a stronger objection that they are interrupted by strokes of feeble satire at the expence of physicians and undertakers. His expressions are often mean, and his epithets ill-chosen and degrading, “supernumerary horror;” “new-made widow;” “sooty blackbird;” “strong-lunged cherub;” “lame kindness,” c. &c. “solder of society” “by stronger arm belaboured” “great gluts of people,” &c. are vulgarisms which cannot be pardoned in so short a production.

“The Grave” is said to have been first printed at Edinburgh in 1747, but this is a mistake. It was printed in 1743 at London, for M. Cooper. The author had previously submitted it to Dr. Watts, who informed him that two booksellers had declined the risk of publication. He had likewise corresponded with Dr. Doddridge on the subject, and in a letter to that divine, says, that “in order to make it more generally liked, he was obliged sometimes to go cross to his own inclination, well knowing that whatever poem is written upon a serious argument, must upon that very account lie under peculiar disadvantages; and therefore proper arts must be used to make such a piece go down with a licentious age which cares for none of those things.” In what respect he crossed his inclination, and by what arts he endeavoured to make his poem more acceptable to a licentious age, we know not. In defence of the present age, it may be said with justice that the poem owes its popularity to its subject, and that notwithstanding its defects, it will probably be a lasting favourite with persons of a serious turn.

, a gentleman who was cut off early in life, but whose progress and improvements in natural knowledge were so great, that the editors of the second edition of the Biographia Britannica have thought him entitled to an honourable place in their work, was the son of John Blake, esq. and born in London, Nov. 4, 1745; educated at Westminster school; afterwards instructed in mathematics, chemistry, and drawing: but botany was his favourite object, in which he made a great progress. With these advantages he set out in life, and in 1766 was sent as one of the East India company’s supercargoes at Canton in China where he was no sooner fixed, than he resolved to employ every moment of his time, which could be spared from the duties of his station, to the advancement of natural science for the benefit of his countrymen. His plan was, to procure the seeds of all the vegetables found in China, which are used in medicine, manufactures, and food; and to send into Europe not only such seeds, but the plants by which they were produced, that they might be propagated either in Great Britain and Ireland, or in those colonies of America, the soil and climate of which might suit them best. But it was not to botanic subjects alone, that Mr. Blake’s genius was confined he had begun to collect fossils and ores and he now attended as much to mineralogy, as he had done to botany.

, a celebrated English admiral, was born August 1599, at Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, where he was educated at the grammar-school. He went from, thence to Oxford, and was entered at St. Alban’s hall, but removed to Wadham college, and in 1617 took the degree of B. A. In 1623 he wrote a copy of verses on the death of Camden, and soon after left the university. He was tinctured pretty early with republican principles and disliking that severity with which Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells, pressed uniformity in his diocese, he began to fall into the puritanical opinions. The natural bluntness and sincerity of his disposition led him to speak freely upon all occasions, insomuch that, his sentiments being generally known, the puritan party got him elected member for Bridgewater in 1640. When the civil war broke out, he declared for the parliament. In 1643 he was at Bristol, under the command of col. Fiennes, who intrusted him with a little fort on the line and, when prince Rupert attacked Bristol, and the governor had agreed to surrender it upon, articles, Blake nevertheless for some time held out his fort, and killed several of the king’s forces: which exasperated prince Rupert to such a degree, that he talked of hanging him, had not some friends interposed, and excused him on account of his want of experience in war. He served afterwards in Somersetshire, under the command of Popham, governor of Lyme; and, being much beloved in those parts, he had such good intelligence there, that in conjunction with sir Robert Pye, he surprised Taunton for the parliament. In 1644 he was appointed governor of this place, w; ich was of the utmost importance, being the only garrison the parliament had in the west. The works about it were not strong, nor was the garrison numerous; yet, by his strict discipline, and kind behaviour to the townsmen, he found means to keep the place, though not properly furnished with supplies, and sometimes besieged, and even blocked up by the king’s forces. At length Goring made a breach, and actually took part of the town; while Blake still held out the other part and the castle, till relief came. For this service the parliament ordered the garrison a bounty of 2000l. and the governor a present of 500l. When the parliament had voted that no farther addresses should be made to the king, Blake joined in an address from the borough of Taunton, expressing their gratefulness for this step taken by the house of commons. However, when the king came to be tried, Blake disapproved of that measure, as illegal; and was frequently heard to say, he would as freely venture his life to save the king’s, as ever he did to serve the parliament. But this is thought to have been chiefly owing to the humanity of his temper; since after the death of the king he entered into all the measures of the republican party, and, next to Cromwell, was the ablest officer the parliament had.

February 12, 1649, he was appointed to command the fleet, in conjunction with col. Deane and col. Popham, and soon after was ordered to sail, with a squadron of men of war, in pursuit of prince Rupert. Blake came before Kinsale in June 1649, where prince Rupert lay in harbour. He kept him in the harbour till the beginning of October; when the prince, despairing of relief by sea, and Cromwell being ready to take the town by land, provisions of all sorts falling short, he resolved to force his way through Blake’s squadron, which he effected with the loss of three of his ships. The prince’s fleet steered their course to Lisbon, where they were protected by the king of Portugal. Blake sent to the king for leave to enter, and coming near with his ships, the castle shot at him; upon which he dropped anchor, and sent a boat to know the reason of this hostility. The captain of the castle answered, he had no orders from the king to let his ships pass: however, the king commanded one of the lords of the court to wait upon Blake, and to desire him not to come in except the weather proved bad, lest some quarrel should happen between him and prince Rupert; the king sent him, at the same time, a large present of fresh provisions. The weather proving bad, Blake sailed up the river into the bay of Wyers, but two miles from the place where prince Rupert’s ships lay; and thence he sent capt. Moulton, to inform the king of the falsities in the prince’s declaration. The king, however, still refusing to allow the admiral to attack prince Rupert, Blake took five of the Brazil fleet richly laden, and at the same time sent notice to him, that unless he ordered the prince’s ships out from his river, he would seize the rest of the Portuguese fleet from America. Sept. 1650 the prince endeavoured to get out of the harbour, but was soon driven in again by Blake, who sent to England nine Portuguese ships bound for Brazil. October following, he and Popham met with a fleet of 23 sail from Brazil for Lisbon, of whom, they sunk the admiral, took the vice-admiral, and 11 other ships, having 10,000 chests of sugar on board. Jn his return home, he met with two ships in search of the prince, whom he followed up the Streights when he took a French man of war, the captain of which had committed hostilities. He sent this prize, reported to be worth a million, into Calais, and followed the prince to the pore of Carthagena, where he lay with the remainder of his fleet. As soon as Blake came to anchor before the fort, he sent a messenger to the Spanish governor, informing him, that an enemy to the state of England was in his port, that the parliament had commanded him to pursue him, and the king of Spain being in amity with the parliament, he desired leave to take all advantages against their enemy. The governor replied, he could not take notice of the difference of any nations or persons amongst themselves, only such as were declared enemies to the king his master; that they came in thither for safety, therefore he could not refuse them protection, and that he would do the like for the admiral. Blake still pressed the governor to permit him to attack the prince, and the Spaniard put him off till he could have orders from Madrid. While the admiral was cruizing in the Mediteranean, prince Rupert got out of Carthagena, and sailed to Malaga. Blake, having notice of his destroying many English ships, followed him and attacking him in the port, burnt and destroyed his whole fleet, two ships only excepted this was in January 1651. In February, Blake took a French man of war of 40 guns, and sent it, with other prizes, to England. Soon after 'he came with his squadron to Plymouth, when he received the thanks of the parliament, and was made warden of the cinque ports. March following, an act passed, whereby colonel Blake, colonel Popham, and colonel Deane, or any two of them, were appointed admirals and generals of the fleet, for the year ensuing. The next service he was put upon, was the reducing the isles of Scilly,- which were held for the king. He sailed in May, with a body of Boo land troops on board. Sir John Grenville, who commanded in those parts for the king, after some small resistance, submitted. He sailed next for Guernsey, which was held for the king, by sir George Carteret. He arrived there in October, and landing what forces he had the very next day, he did every thing in his power in order to make a speedy conquest of the island, which was not completed that year. In the beginning of the next, however, the governor, finding all hopes of relief vain, thought proper to make the best terms he could. For this service Blake had thanks from the parliament, and was elected one of the council of state. March 25, 1652, he was appointed sole admiral for nine months, on the prospect of a Dutch war. The states sent Van Trump with forty-five sail of men of war into the Downs, to insult the English Blake, however, though he had but twentv-three ships, and could expect no succour but from major Bourne, who commanded eight more, yet, being attacked by Van Trump, fought him bravely, and forced him to retreat. This was on the 19th of May, 1652. After this engagement the states seemed inclined to peace but the commonwealth of England demanded such terms as could not be complied with, and therefore both sides prepared to carry on the war with greater vigour. Blake now harassed the enemy by taking their merchant ships, in which he had great success. On the 10th of June, a detachment from his fleet fell upon twenty-six sail of Dutch merchantmen, and took them every one and by the end of June he had sent into port forty prizes. On the 2d of July he sailed, with a strong squadron, northwards. In his course he took a Dutch man of war; and about the latter end of the month, he fell on twelve men of war, convoy to their herring busses, took the whole convoy, 100 of their busses, and dispersed the rest. August 12, he returned into the Downs, with six of the Dutch men of war, and 900 prisoners. Thence he stood over to the coast of Holland, and on Sept. 28th, having discovered the Dutch about noon, though he had only three of his own squadron with him, vice-admiral Penii with his squadron at some distance, and the rest a league or two astern, he bore in among the Dutch fleet, being bravely seconded by Penn and Bourne when three of the enemy’s ships were wholly disabled at the first brunt, and another as she was towing oft* The rear-admiral was taken by captain Mildmay and had not night intervened, it was thought not a single ship of the Dutch fleet would have escaped. On the 29th, about day-break, the English espied the Dutch fleet N.E. two leagues off; the admiral bore up to them, but the enemy having the wind of him, he could not reach them however, he commanded his light frigates to ply as near as they could, and keep firing while the rest bore up after them upon which the Dutch hoisted their sails, and run for it. The English being in want of provisions, returned to the Downs. Blake having been obliged to make large detachments from his fleet Van Trump, who had again the command of the Dutch navy, consisting of eighty men of war, resolved to take this opportunity of attacking him in the Downs, knowing he had not above half his number of ships. He accordingly sailed away to the back of the Goodwin. Blake having intelligence of this, called a council of war, wherein it was resolved to fight, though at so great a disadvantage. The engagement began November 29, about two in the morning, and lasted till near six in the evening. Blake was aboard the Triumph; this ship, the Victory, and the Vanguard, suffered most, having been engaged at one time with twenty of the enemy’s best ships. The admiral finding his ships much disabled, and that the Dutch had the advantage of the wind, drew off his fleet in the night into the Thames, having lost the Garland and Bonaventure, which were taken by the Dutch a small frigate was also burnt, and three sunk and his remaining ships much shattered and disabled Van Trump, however, bought this victory dear, x one of his flag-ships being blown up, all the men drowned, and his own ship and De Kuyter’s both unfit for service till they were repaired. This success invigorated the spirits of the Dutch exceedingly; Van Trump sailed through the channel with a broom at his main-top-mast, to signify that he had swept the seas of English ships. In the mean time, Blake having repaired his fleet, and Monk and Deane being now joined in commission with him, sailed Feb. 8, 1653, from Queensborough, with sixty men of war, which were soon after joined with twenty more from Portsmouth. On the 18th they discovered Van Trump with seventy men of war, and 300 merchant ships under his convoy. Blake, with twelve ships, came up with and engaged the Dutch fleet, and, though grievously wounded in the thigh, continued the fight till night, when the Dutch, who had six men of war sunk and taken, retired. After having put ashore his wounded men at Portsmouth, he followed the enemy, whom he came up with next day, when the fight was renewed, to the loss of the Dutch, who continued retreating towards Boulogne. All the night following Blake continued the pursuit, and, in the morning of the 20th, the two fleets fought again till four in the afternoon, when the wind blowing favourably for the Dutch, they secured themselves on the flats of Dunkirk and Calais. In these three engagements the Dutch lost eleven men of war, thirty merchant ships, and had fifteen hundred men slain. The English lost only one ship, but not fewer men than the enemy. In April Cromwell turned out the parliament, and shortly after assumed the supreme power. The states hoped great advantages from this, but were disappointed Blake said on this occasion to his officers, “It is not for us to mind state affairs, but to keep foreigners from fooling us.” Towards the end of the month Blake and his colleagues, with a fleet of an hundred sail, stood over to the Dutch coast, and forced their fleet to take shelter in the Texel, where, for some time, they were kept by Monk and Deane, while Blake sailed Northward at last Van Trump got out, and drew together a fleet of an hundred and twenty men of war. June 3d, Deane and Monk engaged him off the North Foreland. On the 4th Blake came to their assistance with eighteen fresh ships, by which means a complete victory was gained; and if the Dutch had not again saved themselves on Calais sands, their whole fleet had been sunk or taken. Cromwell having called the parliament, styled the Little Parliament, Blake, Oct. 10, took his seat in the house, where he received their solemn thanks for his many and faithful services. The protector afterwards called a new parliament, consisting of four hundred, 'where Blake sat also, being the representative for his native town of Bridgewater. Dec. 6th he was appointed one of the commissioners of the admiralty. Nov. 1654, Cromwell sent him with a strong fleet into the Mediterranean, with instructions to support the honour of the English flag, and to procure satisfaction for any injuries that might have been done to our merchants. In December Blake came into the road of Cadiz, where he was treated with great respect; a Dutch admiral would not hoist his flag while he was there. The Algerines were so much afraid of him, that they stopped their Sallee rovers, obliged them to deliver up what English prisoners they had on board, and sent them to Blake, in, order to procure his favour. Nevertheless, he came before Algiers on the 10th of March, when he sent an officer on shore to the dey to tell him he had orders to demand satisfaction for the piracies committed on the English, and to insist on the release of all such English captives as were then in the place. To this the dey made answer, that the captures belonging to particular men he could not restore; but, if Mr. Blake pleased, he might redeem what English captives were there at a reasonable price; and, if he thought proper, the Algerines would conclude a peace with him, and for the future offer no acts of hostility to the English. This answer was accompanied with a present of fresh provisions. Blake sailed to Tunis on the same errand. The dey of Tunis sent him a haughty answer. “Here,” said he, “are our castles of Goletta and Porto Ferino, do your worst! do you think we fear your fleet?” On the hearing this, Blake, as his custom was when in a passion, began to curl his whiskers; and, after a short consultation with his officers, bore into the bay of Porto Ferino with his great ships when, coming within musket-shot of the castle, he fired on it so briskly, that in two hours it was rendered defenceless, and the guns on the works along the shore were dismounted, though sixty of them played at a time upon the English. He found nine ships in the road, and ordered every captain, even of his own ship, to man his long boat with choice men, and these to enter the harbour and tire the Tuniseens, while he and his fleet covered them from the castle, by playing continually on it with their cannon. The seamen in their boats boldly assaulted the pirates, and burnt all their ships, with the loss of twenty-five men killed, and forty-eight wounded. This daring action spread the terror of his name throughout Africa and Asia, which had for a long time before been formidable in Europe. He also struck such terror into the piratical state of Tripoly, that he made them glad to strike up a peace with England. These and other exploits raised the glory of the English name so high, that most of the princes and states in Italy thought fit to pay their compliments to the protector, particularly the grand duke of Tuscany, and the republic of Venice, who sent magnificent embassies for that purpose. The war in the mean time was grown pretty hot with Spain and Blake used his utmost efforts to ruin their maritime force in Europe, as Penn had done in the West Indies. But finding himself now in a declining state of health, and fearing the ill consequences which might ensue in case he should die without any colleague to take charge of the fleet, he wrote letters into England, desiring some proper person to be named in commission with him; upon which general Montague sent joint-admiral, with a strong squadron to assist him. Soon after his arrival in the Mediterranean, the two admirals sailed with their whole fleet to block up a Spanish squadron in the bay of Cadiz. At length, in September, being in great want of water, Blake and Montague stood away for the coast of Portugal, leaving captain Stayner with seven ships to look after the enemy. Soon after they were gone, the Spanish plate fleet appeared, but were intercepted by Stayner, who took the vice-admiral and another galleon, which were afterwards burnt by accident, the rear-admiral, with two millions of plate on board, and another ship richly laden. These prizes, together with all the prisoners, were seat into England under general Montague, and Blake alone remained in the Mediterranean till, being informed that another plate fleet had put into Santa Cruz, in the island of Teneriffe, he sailed thither in April 1657, with a fleet of twenty-five men of war. On the 20th he came into the road of Santa Cruz; and though the Spanish governor had timely notice, was a man of courage and conduct, and had disposed all things in the most proper manner, so that he looked upon an attack as what no wise admiral would think practicable yet Blake having summoned him, and received a short answer, was determined to force the place, and to burn the fleet therein; and he performed it in such a manner as appears next to incredible. It is allowed to be one of the most remarkable actions that ever happened at sea. As soon as the news arrived of this extraordinary action, the protector sent to acquaint his second parliament, then sitting, therewith upon which they ordered a public thanksgiving, and directed a diamond ring worth 500l. to be sent to Blake and the thanks of the house was ordered to all the officers and seamen, and to be given them by their admiral. Upon his return to the Mediterranean he cruised some time before Cadiz but finding himself declining fast, resolved to return home. He accordingly sailed for England, but lived not to see again his native land for he died as the fleet was entering Plymouth, the 17th of August 1657, aged 58.His body was conveyed to Westminster abbey, and interred with great pomp in Henry the Seventh’s chapel but removed from thence in 1661, and re-interred in St. Margaret’s church-yard. He was a man of a low stature but of a quick, lively eye, and of a good soldier-like countenance. He was in his person brave beyond example, yet cool in action, and shewed a great deal of military conduct; in the disposition of those desperate attacks which men of a cooler composition have judged rather fortunate thun expedient. He certainly* loved his country with extraordinary ardour, and, as he never meddled with intrigues of state, so whatever government he served, he was solicitous to do his duty. He was upright to a supreme degree, for, notwithstanding the vast sums which passed through his hands, he scarcely left five hundred pounds behind him of his own acquiring. In fine, he was altogether disinterested and unambitious, exposing himseii on all occasions for the benefit of the public and the g-ory of the nation, and not wkh any view to his own private profit or fame. In respect to his personal character, he was pious without affectation, strictly just, and liberal to the utmost extent of his fortune. His officers he treated with the familiarity of friends, and to his sailors he was truly a parent. The state buried him as it was fit: at the public expence a grave was given him, but no tomb; and though he still wants an epitaph, writers of all parties have shewn an eagerness to do his memorv justice. We find it very positively asserted, that captain Benjamin Blake, brother to the general, suffered so many hardships for being a dissenter, in the latter end of the reign of king Charles II. that he found himself under the necessity of selling his patrimony, and transporting himself and his family to Carolina. Another author (though some indeed think it is the same) relates this story of Mr. Humphry Blake, the general’s brother, and tells us, that the family estate was worth tsvo hundred pounds a year, which he was obliged to dispose of, to pay the fines laid upon him for his nonconformity. It is jiowever strange, that every one of the general’s nephevfs an,d nieces, by his sister Susannah, who married a gentleman at Mineheacl, in Somersetshire, should be totally unacquainted with this transaction, and that none of the family should be able to give any account of that matter; and therefore it seems to be justly doubted whether there be any truth in the story, or whether it is only grounded on there being a considerable family of his name settled in that province, one of whom, when it was in private hands, was a lord proprietor.

In the same author there are some remarks concerning Blake’s conduct, in the battle which he fought with the Dutch, on the 29th of November, 1652, that appear worthy of atter.tion. “There are,” says he, “sometimes observations and enquiries, which all historians seem to decline by agreement, of which this action may alford us an example. Nothing appears at the first view more to demand our curiosity, or afford matter for examination, than this wild encounter of twenty-two ships, with a force, according to their accounts who favour the Dutch, three times superior. Nothing can justify a commander in fighting under such disadvantages, but the impossibility of retreating. But what hindered Blake from retiring as well before the fight as after it To say he was ignorant of the strength of the Dutch fleet, is to impute to him a very criminal degree of negligence; and at least it must be confessed, that, from the time he saw them, he could not but know that they were too powerful to be opposed by him, and even then there was time for retreat. To urge the ardour of his sailors, is to divest him of the authority of a commander, and to charge him with the most reproachful weakness that can enter into the character of a general. To mention the impetuosity of his own courage, is to make the blame of his temerity equal to the praise of tils valour; which seems, indeed, to be the most gentle censure that the truth of history will allow. We must then admit, amidst our eulogies and applauses, that the great, the wise, and the valiant Blake, was once betrayed to an inconsiderate and desperate enterprize, by the resistless ardour of his own spirit, and a noble jealousy of ttie honour of his country.” This quotation we reta n for the purpose of ad din", that if the author had lived in the times of a St, Vincent and a Nelson, he would have probably viewed Blake’s temerity in a different light.

, an English puritan divine, was born in Staffordshire in 1597, and in 1616 was entered of Christ Church, Oxford, where he took his degrees, and went into the church. In 1648 he sided with the ruling party, subscribed the covenant, and became pastor of St. Alcmond’s in Shrewsbury, and afterwards of Tamworth in Staffordshire, where he was also one of the committee for the ejection of those who were accounted “ignorant and scandalous ministers and schoolmasters.” He died in June, 1657, and was buried in Tamworth church, after a funeral sermon preached by the famous Mr. Anthony Burgess, of Sutton Colfield.

, a French abbé of considerable talents and amiable character, was born at Angerville, near Chartres, Jan. 26, 1707, of poor parents, who were, however, enabled to give him an education, to complete which he came to Paris. In 1724 he entered among the Jesuits as a noviciate, but did not remain long among them: yet he was highly esteemed by his masters, and preserved the friendship of the eminent Jesuits Brumoy, Bougeant, and Castel. He then employed himself in education, and taught, with much reputation, rhetoric and the classics in two provincial colleges, until the weak state of his health obliged him to restrict his labours to the office of private tutor, an office which he rescued from the contempt into which it had fallen, by taking equal care of the morals and learning of his pupils, all of whom did him, credit in both respects. Being a lover of independence, he resigned his canonry in the cathedral of Boulogne, and when appointed one of the interpreters of the king’s library, the same scruples induced him to decline it, until M.Bignon assured him that the place was given him as the reward of his merit, and required no sacrifices. Soon after he was appointed censor, but upon condition that he should have nothing to censure, and he accordingly accepted the title, but refused the salary and his friends, having thus far overcome his repugnance to offices of this description, procured him the farther appointment of keeper of the books in the king’s cabinet at Versailles. Yet this courtly situation was not at all to his mind, and he resigned in order to go and live in obscurity at St. Germain-en- laye, where he died Jan. 29, 1781, at about eighty. His disposition was amiable in society, where, however, he seldom appeared; but he became gloomy and melancholy in the solitude to which he condemned himself. Premature infirmities had considerably altered his temper. He was oppressed with vapours, from which he suffered alone, and by which he was afraid of making others suffer. It was this that made him seek retirement. “Such as I am,” said he, “I must bear with myself; but are o.hers obliged to bear with me I really think, if I had not the support and consolations of religion, I should lose my senses.” By nature disinterested, he constantly refused favours and benefits, and it was with great difficulty he could be made to accept of any thing. The advancement of his friends, however, was not so indifferent to him as his own; and he was delighted when they were promoted to any lucrative or useful place. Living in this retired manner, he was scarcely known to the public till after his death. Of his writing are the “Varietes morales et amusantes,” 1784, 2 vols. 12mo, and “Apologues et contes orientaux,” 1785, 8vo in both which he shews himself a man of much reading, and who has the talent of writing with sentiment, philosophy, and taste. There are likewise by him several little pieces of poetry, of the light and agreeable kind, of which the greater part were attributed to the best poets of the time, who did not shew any vehement disdain at the imputation which made the abbé Blanchet say, “I am. delighted that the rich adopt my children.” These he would lend to his friends on the most solemn promises to return them without copying, or suffering them to be copied, and would often be extremely anxious if they were not retunted within the time specified, when he immediately consigned them to the flames. One of his poems, however, appears to have escaped this fate, an ode on the existence of God, which was published in 1784, with his “Vues sur Teducation d'un prince,” 12mo. Dusaulx, his relation, wrote an amusing life of the abbé, which is prefixed to the “Apologues.”

, a lady remarkable both for her knowledge of the Hebrew language, and for a peculiar skilfulness in writing it, was born about the time of the restoration, and was daughter and heir of Mr. Robert Fisher of Long-acre. April 26, 1681, she married Mr. Nathanael Bland (then a linen-draper in London, afterwards lord of the manor of Beeston in Yorkshire), by whom she had six children, who all died in their infancy, excepting one son named Joseph, and a daughter called Martha, who was married to Mr. George Moore of Beeston. She was instructed in the Hebrew language by the lord Van Helmont, which she understood to such a degree of perfection, that she taught it to her son and daughter.

, a man who acquired some fame in the sixteenth century by the shallow pretence of free inquiry, was born in the marquisate of Saluzzo in Italy. He appears to have studied medicine, and for some time practised with reputation, but the various opinions which arose out of the reformation from popery in the beginning of the sixteenth century, having excited his curiosity in no common degree, he determined to try them all, and began with abandoning the principles of popery in which he had been educated, for those of Luther, which he quitted soon after for those of Calvin. Not satisfied with this, he wished to retrace more ancient opinions, embraced those of Arius, then inclined to the doctrines of Paul of Samosata, and finally struck out of his creed all belief in the incarnation and the Trinity, maintaining that Jesus Christ was a mere man, and no more deserving of religious worship than any other man. Stocked with these notions, as well as with his professional knowledge, he had the ambition to propagate the one and practise the other in Germany, Poland, and Transylvania. In Polandhe became physician to the queen of Sigismund Augustus, and having insinuated himself into the good graces of that prince, began to communicate to him his religious opinions, and after some time returned to Italy, where the freedom he took in divulging these occasioned his being shut up in the prison of the inquisition at Pavia. Having, however, contrived to make his escape, he went to Geneva, and became a warm admirer of the opinions of Servetus, who had recently been put to death for oppugning the doctrine of the Trinity. On this, Calvin, after having in vain endeavoured to reclaim him by conference and correspondence, gave him up to justice, which Blandrata escaped by making profession of Calvinism, to which he adhered long enough to reach Poland, where the imposition was detected. At this time, John Sigismund, prince of Trausylvania, appointed him his physician and being a man of skill he found means to insinuate his principles in the families which employed him. In 1566, at Alba Julia, in the presence of the court, he held a public conference against the Lutherans, which lasted ten days, and ended in bringing over the prince and the nobles of Transylvania to unitarianism. An account of this conference was printed in 1568, 4to, entitled “Brevis enarratio disputationis Albanæ de Deo trino et Christo duplici.” On the death of Sigismund, he came a third time into Poland, and was appointed physician and counsellor to king Stephen Battori; but as he found this monarch unfriendly to his religious tenets, he withdrew himself from the unitarians, for which he was severely censured by Socinus, who hoped to have found him an able assistant, and had invited him to Poland with that view. This was the last of his many changes of opinion; for soon after, a nephew whom he had threatened to disinherit, on account of his attachment to popery, put him to death in a violent quarrel, which perhaps he had provoked for the purpose. This appears to have taken place some time between 1585 and 1592. He gave so little satisfaction to any party, that all considered his death as a judgment on his apostacy. Blandrata’s works are in Sandius’s Anti-Trinitarian library.

, a painter of great abilities, was born at Alkmaar in 1628, and received his earliest instruction from Arent Tierling but afterwards he was successively the disciple of Peter Scheyenburg and Caesar Van Everdingen. When he had spent some years with those masters, he went to Rome, where, during his continuance in that city, he carefully copied the works of the best masters, and was admitted into the society of Flemish painters called Bentvogels, who gave him the name of Jan Maat (which in Dutch signifies mate or companion), and by that name he is most generally known. His subjects were landscapes, with views of rivers or sea-shores, havens or ports, which he executed with a light free pencil; and in the representation of storms and calms (as nature was always his model) he described those subjects with great truth, exactness, and neatness of handling. The pictures of this master which are most commended are the Italian sea-ports, with vessels lying before them. He possessed a lively imagination; nor was his hand less expeditious than his thoughts; and the connoisseurs agreed in opinion, that if he had bestowed more labour on his pictures than he usually did, so as to finish them more highly, he would certainly have destroyed a great deal of their spirit, force, and effect. His most capital performance is a view of the sea-shore, with the waves retiring at ebb tide; which is described by Houbraken as being wonderfully beautiful and natural. He died in 1670.

, a saint and martyr, and according to the Breviary, bishop of Sebasta in Cappadocia, deserves this slight notice, as a person of great note among the vulgar, who in their processions of the wool-trade, always carry an effigies or representation of him, as the inventor or patron of their art of combing it. There was an order of knighthood also instituted in honour of him; and his day, which stands now marked in our Calendar, was Feb. 3. He suffered death in the reign of Dioclesian, about the year 283, according to the Legenda Aurea, but the English version of that book has the year 387, neither of which dates are strictly true, since Dioclesian did not succeed to the empire till the year 2Si, and died before the latter date. Before his death, which was by beheading, he was whipped, and had his flesh tornferreis pectinibiis, with iron combs and this seems to be the only foundation for the respect paid to his memory by wool-combers. Thus far the learned antiquary Dr. Pegge, in a letter on the history of St. Blase but Butler, in his “Lives of the Saints,” fixes his death in the year 316, when he was martyred in the persecution of Licinius, by the command of Agricolaus, governor of Cappadocia and the lesser Armenia.

, a French surgeon, or physician, of the seventeenth century, by uniting the quack and the regular, acquired a considerable degree of reputation, and belongs to a class, we fear, pretty numerous in other countries as well as France. He began his career as a trussmaker, and then placed himself at the head of an academy of his own creation for medical discoveries, the memoirs of which were published monthly, and we presume there must have been some papers of consequence among them, as the celebrated Bonnet translated those of the first three years into Latin, and published them under the title of “Zodiacus Medico-Gallicus,” 1680, 4to. The liberties, however, which Blegny took with the characters of some physicians of reputation occasioned the suppression of these memoirs in 1682, yet he continued to write, and sent his papers to one Ganthier, a physician of Niort, who published them at Amsterdam in 1684, under the title of the “Mercure savant.” In the mean time Blegny endeavoured to make himself famous, and that nothing might be wanting to shew his variety of talents he added to surgery and pharmacy a course of lectures on wig-making. For some time he appears to have imposed on the court itself, as we find that in 1678 he was appointed surgeon in ordinary to the queen; in 1633 surgeon in ordinary to the duke of Orleans; and in 1687, physician in ordinary to the king: but in 1693, his real character becoming more apparent, he was stripped of these honours for having attempted to establish an order of knighthood, and sent to prison at the castle of Angers, where he was confined for eight years. After his release, he retired to Avignon, where he died in 1722, aged about seventy. He published various works, now in little estimation.

, was born at Rennes, Eeb. 25, 1696, and entered early into the congregation of the oratory, where he was a distinguished professor. The order against wigs, which seems to have raised very serious scruples, occasioned his quitting it; but he retained the friendship and esteem of his former brethren. He then went to Paris, where his talents procured him the professorship of eloquence in the collegeroyal, and a place in the academy of belles lettres. He published several works, which have been well received by the public 1. “The Life of the Emperor Julian,” Paris, 1735, 1746, 12mo, a curious performance, well written, and distinguished at once by impartiality, precision, elegance and judgment, and which was translated into English under the inspection of Mr. Bowyer in 1746. 2. “The History of the Emperor Jovian,” with translations of some works of the emperor Julian, Paris, 1748, 2 vols. 12mo, a book no less valuable than the former, by the art with which the author has selected, arranged and established facts, and by the free and varied turns of the translator. This was abridged by Mr. Duncombe in the “Select Works of the Emperor Julian,” 1784, 2 vols. 8vo. The life of Jovian, however, seems much inferior to that of Julian. But the difference may be owing to the character of those two persons, the one being an object of much more interest than the other. 3. A translation of some works of Tacitus, Paris, 1755, 2 vols. 12mo. The manners of the Germans, and the life of Agricola, are the two pieces comprised in this version, which is equally elegant and faithful. Prefixed is a Life of Tacitus, which is also worthy of this writer, and was admired for strength of sentiment and animation of style. For this historian the abbé cle la jSleterie had an uncommon predilection he spoke of him incessantly to his friends. “To Tacitus,” said he, “I am much indebted I ought therefore in justice to dedicate to his glory the remainder of my life.” 4. “Tiberius, or the six first books of the Annals of Tacitus, translated into French,” Paris, 1768, 3 vols. 12mo. This work was not so popular among his countrymen, who blame the affected style, and say they very seldom discover in it the elegant historian of Julian. It occasioned at the time these two lines

This translation is in other respects sufficiently exact. 5. “Letters occasioned by the account of Quietism given by M. Phelipeaux,” 173';, 12mo. This pamphlet, which is scarce, and very well written, contains a defence of the conduct of madame de Guyon. 6. Some highly esteemed dissertations in the memoirs of the academy of belles lettres. 7. “Most humble Remonstrances of M. de Montempuis;” an obscure and indifferent work, in favour of a pedant, who had made himself ridiculous by an absurd and unlucky adventure. The abbé de la Bleterie died at an advanced age, June 1, 1772. He was a man of learning, attached to religion, and his morals did not belie his principles. His knowledge being solid and diversified, rendered his conversation useful and interesting. With sound rather than brilliant talents, endowed with more judgment than imagination, he had the merit of knowing how to choose his friends, and how to retain them.

Besides the works above-mentioned, Bleterie was editor of Masclef’s Hebrew Grammar when studying that language he took a fancy to Masclef’s method, and in order to support it, published a work enticed “Vindiciae methodi Masclefianse,” in elegant Latin, and afterwards inserted it in his edition of the grammar published in 1731. We have already mentioned that he was a member of the academy of belles-lettres, and was a candidate for the French academy. His rival on this occasion was Racine, the son, but both were rejected as Jansenists. Bleterie submitted to the disappointment, and when his friends were about to interest themselves in the repeal of this sentence of exclusion, he would upon no account co-operate with them, contenting himself with the esteem of the academicians, who, the president Renault says, consitiered him as a colleague of whom they had been deprived.

, an eminent naturalist, and a Jew hy birth, was born at Anspech, in 1723, of very poor parents. He began to study very late at the age of nineteen, he knew neither German or Latin, and had read only some of the writings of the Rabbis, notwithstanding which, he was employed as a tutor in the family of a Jew surgeon at Hamburgh. There he himself was taught German, and a poor Bohemian Catholic gave him some instructions in Latin; he picked up also some knowledge of anatomy. Afterwards he made rapid progress in regaining lost time, and having removed to live with some relations he had at Berlin, he applied himself with eagerness and success to the study of anatomy and natural history, and received a doctor’s degree at Francfort on the Oder, with which he returned to practise as a physician at Berlin. Here the celebrated naturalist Martini procured him to be elected a member of the society of the “Curious in nature,” and he soon became highly distinguished among the scientific men of his time. He died Aug. 6, 1799, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. His principal work was his “Natural history of Fishes, particularly those of the Prussian states,” four parts, Berlin, 1781 and 1782, large 4to. He wrote afterwards a “Natural history of foreign Fishes,” Berlin, 1784, and “The natural history of German Fishes,” 1782. These different works, of which the descriptions are in German, were afterwards united under the title of “Ichthyology, or the natural history of Fishes,” Berlin, 1785, 12 vols. 4to, published by subscription, in seventy-two parts; the text was translated into French by Laveaux, and was published in 12 vols. fol. and reprinted in 1795. This is unquestionably one of the most splendid books in natural history, but the author, who had begun to have his drawings, engravings, and the colouring executed at his own expence, never could have completed it, had not his countrymen considered it as a national work, and princes, nobles, and amateurs, came forward with the most liberal assistance, and enabled him to finish the last six volumes upon the same scale of elegance as the former. The French edition in 12 vols. 8vo, Berlin, 1796, is greatly inferior to the former. Block wrote also, a “Treatise on the generation of worms in the intestines, and on the method of destroying them,” which gained the prize offered by the royal society of Denmark, and was printed at Berlin, 1782, 4to, and a “Treatise on the waters of Pyrmont,” both in German, Hamburgh, 1774, 8vo.

, bishop of Ripen, in Denmark, who was born in 1717, and died in 1773, cultivated the science of botany, particularly with a view to illustrate those passages of Scripture in which plants, &c. are mentioned. In 1767, he published at Copenhagen “Tentamen Phoenicologices sacra, seu dissertatio emblematico-theologica de Palma,” 8vo, a work containing many curious remarks on the palm or date-tree of Palestine and Idumea, which was called the phosnix by the Greeks and most of the eastern nations. It often occurs in the Bible, and the learned author has collected and explained the several passages. This species of palm is the phoenix dactylifera of modern botanists. A third author of the same name, John Erasmus Block, a Danish gardener, published at Copenhagen a treatise on the art of cultivating gardens, under the title “Horticultura Danica,” 1647, 4to.

, the youngest son of Abraham, was born in 1603, at Utrecht. The first principles of drawing and painting he learned from his father but his natural inclination for the 'art of engraving was so powerful, that he applied himself wholly to the pursuit of it. He first studied under Crispin de Pass, an engraver much more famous for the neatness than the good taste of his works. Not satisfied with what he learned from this artist, he went to Rome, in order to profit by studying the works of the greatest masters and in that city (where the far greater part of his engravings were made) he died in a very advanced age. “The manner of engraving adopted by this excellent artist, appears to me (says Mr. Strutt) to be not only quite original, but the source from which we may trace that style in which the greatest and best French masters excelled; those, I mean, who worked with the graver only. He covered the lights upon his distances, and the other parts of his piates whicn required tinting, with great care. The lights, whether on the distant hills, trees, buildings, or figures, in the engravings prior to his time, had been left quite clear, and by so many white spots scattered in various parts of the same design, the harmony was destroyed, the subject confused, and the principal figures prevented from relieving with any striking effect. By this judicious improvement, Bloemart gave to his prints a more clear and finished appearance than all the laboured neatness even of Jerome Wierix had been able to produce. He drew correctly but from his style of engraving, which was executed entirely with the graver, the extremities of his figures are heavy, and his heads are not always equally beautiful or expressive. With respect to the mechanical part of the work, few indeed have excelled him, either in clearness or freedom of execution. His great fault, however, is want of variety. The naked parts of his figures, the ch-aperies, and the back-ground, are equally neat, and engraved precisely in the same manner. Hence the effect is flat and the flesh, for want of sufficient distinction, appears cold and silvery. His works are justly held in high estimation. They are very numerous, and many of them difficult to be procured.”

, was an artist of whose life we have very few particulars, till he was known at Rome, in the year 1716, being at that time painter to count Martinetz and his reputation, as a good painter of portrait in miniature, was well established in Italy. By the solicitation of Overbeke, he was induced to go to Amsterdam, and in that city was employed to paint small portraits for bracelets, rings, and snuff-boxes and although they were painted in water-colours, yet the colouring was as lively and as natural as if they had been painted in oil. However, as he found his sight much impaired by the minuteness of his work, he discontinued water-colour painting, and attempted the use of oil, with a reasonable degree of success. After he had resided for some years in the Low Countries, he went to England, and set up a new method of printing mezzotinto plates in colours so as to imitate the pictures of which they were copies. In this manner he executed in England several large plates, from pictures of the greatest masters, and disposed of the prints by lottery. But those who obtained the prizes (Mr. Strutt says) appear not to have held them in any very great estimation. “The prints,” he adds, “certainly possess some merit, exclusive of their novelty; but, in general, the colours are flat and dirty the effect is neither striking nor judiciously managed and the drawing is frequently very incorrect, especially in the extremities of his figures.” Mr. Pilkington speaks of them with greater approbation “The artist,” he says, “imitated his models with so much skill, such exact resemblance, such correctness of outline, such similarity of colour and expression, that at first they amazed every beholder who viewed them at a proper distance and many of those prints are still extant, which are much esteemed by persons of good taste.” And Mr. Wai pole observes, that some heads, coloured progressively, according to their several gradations, bear witness to the success and beauty of his invention. He had another merit to the public, with which few inventors begin; for he communicated his secret in a thin quarto, entitled “Coloritto, or the harmony of colouring in painting reduced to mechanical practice, under easy precepts and infallible rules.” His method was performed by several mezzotinto plates for one piece, each expressing different shades and parts of the piece in different colours. He was not, however, it is said, the original inventor of that manner of managing colours, but took it from Lastman and others, who, with, much greater regularity of morals, equal capacities, and more discreet conduct, had before undertaken it without success. Le Blond, whose head was continually full of schemes, next set on foot a project for copying the cartoons of Raphael in tapestry, and made drawings from the pictures for that purpose. Houses were built and looms erected at the Mulberry Ground at Chelsea but the expences being too great, or the contributions not equal to the first expectations, the scheme was suddenly defeated, and Le Blond disappeared, to the no small dissatisfaction of those who were engaged with him. From hence he went to Paris, where, Basan informs us, he was in the year 1737; and in that city he died, 1740, in an hospital. Le Blond was also author of a treatise, in French, on ideal beauty. It was published in 1732, and has since been translated into English.

, who was born at Paris in 1671, and died at Evreux, July 23, 1740, possessed a most extensive knowledge of books of every kind, but particularly what related to liturgies, monastic rules, and other branches of ecclesiastical history, which he communicated liberally to the literati of his time. For seventeen years he was corrector of Desprez’s press, and published there, in 1772, “Vie de Saints,” fol. which have gone through several editions. At the end of this volume are subjoined the lives of various other persons eminent for their piety. His own works were chiefly of the religious cast, but he was frequently employed as editor of the works of others, which he illustrated with notes.

, an English physician, born in England, of a French family, and a licentiate of the college of physicians, about the beginning of the last century, published in 1727, “The strength of imagination in pregnant women examined, &c.” This excited a controversy with Dr. Turner, who, in his work on the diseases of the skin, was a strong advocate for the power of imagination in producing marks and deformities. Blondel answered him; and by his humour, as well as argument, contributed much to remove the common prejudices on that popular subject.

, generally known by the appellation of colonel Blood, was a disbanded officer of Oliver Cromwell’s army, famous for his daring crimes and his good fortune. He was first distinguished by engaging in a conspiracy to surprise the castle of Dublin, which was defeated by the vigilance of the duke of Ormond; and some of his accomplices were executed. Escaping to England, he meditated revenge against Ormond and actually seized him one night in his coach in St. James’s-street, where he might have finished his purpose if he had not studied refinements in his vengeance. He bound him on horseback behind one of his associates, resolving to- hang him at Tyburn, with a paper pinned to his breast but when they got into the fields, the duke, in his efforts for liberty, threw himself and the assassin, to whom he was fastened, to the ground and while they were struggling in the mire, he was rescued by his servants; but the authors of this attempt were not then discovered. A little after, in 1671, Blood formed a design of carrying off the crown and regalia from the tower; a design, to which he was prompted, as well by the surprising boldness of the enterprize, as by the views of profit. He was very near succeeding. He had bound and wounded Edwards, the keeper of the jewel-office, and had got out of the tower with his prey but was overtaken and seized, with some of his associates. One of them was known to have been concerned in the attempt upon Ormond and Blood was immediately concluded to be the ringleader. When questioned, he frankly avowed the enterprize but refused to discover his accomplices. “The fear of death (he said) should never induce him either to deny a guilt or betray a friend.” All these extraordinary circumstances made him the general subject of conversation and the king was moved with an idle curiosity to see and speak with a person so noted for his courage and his crimes. Blood might now esteem himself secure of pardon and he wanted not address to improve the opportunity. He told Charles, that he had been engaged with others, in a design to kill him with a carabine above Battersea, where his majesty often went to bathe that the cause of this resolution was the severity exercised over the consciences of the godly, in restraining the liberty of their religious assemblies: that when he had taken his stand among the reeds, full of these bloody resolutions, he found his heart checked with an awe of majesty; and he not only relented himself, but diverted his associates from their purpose: that he had long ago brought himself to an entire indifference about life, which he now gave for lost; yet he could not forbear warning the king of the danger which might attend his execution; that his associates had bound themselves, by the strictest oaths, to revenge the death of any of their confederacy; and that no precaution nor power could secure any one from the effects of their desperate resolutions. Whether these considerations excited fear or admiration in the king, they confirmed his resolution of granting a pardon to Blood and what is yet more extraordinary? Charles carried his kindness so far as to grant him an estate of 500l. a-year. He also showed him great countenance and while old Edwards, who had been wounded, in defending the crown and regalia, was neglected, this man, who deserved only to be stared at and detested as a monster, became a kind of favourite. Blood enjoyed his pension about ten years, till, being charged with fixing an imputation of a scandalous nature on the duke of Buckingham, he was thrown into prison, where he died August 24, 1680.

, younger son of sir Henry Blount, and brother to sir Thomas Pope Blount hereafter mentioned, an eminent writer in the last century, was born at his grandfather’s seat at Upper Holloway, in the county of Middlesex, April 27, 1654. He was endowed by nature with a great capacity, and with a strong propensity to learning; which excellent qualities were properly cultivated by the assiduous care of his father, and under so able an instructor, he quickly acquired an extraordinary skill in the arts and sciences, without any thing of that pedantry, which is too frequently the consequence of young men’s application to study in the common course. His pregnant parts and polite behaviour brought him early into the world, so that his father, who was a true judge of men, thought fit, when he was about eighteen, to marry him to Eleanora, daughter of sir Timothy Tyrrel, of Shotover in the county of Oxford, and gave him a very handsome estate, having always respected him as a friend, as well as loved him with the affection of a father. The year after his marriage, he wrote a little treatise, which he published without his name, in defence of Dryden, whose “Conquest of Granada” was attacked by Richard Leigh, a player. In 1678, or perhaps in 1679, he published his “Anima Mnndi,” in which it is said, and with great probability, that he had the assistance of his father. It had been long before handed about in manuscript among the acquaintance of its author, with several passages in it much stronger than in that which was transmitted to the press, and licensed by sir Roger L'Estrange. This, however, did not hinder its giving great offence, insomuch that complaint was made to Dr. Compton, then Lord Bishop of London, who, upon perusal, signified that he expected it should be suppressed, and intimating, that he would thereupon rest satisfied. But afterwards, when the Bishop was out of town, an opportunity was taken by some zealous person to burn the book, which however has been reprinted since. The same year he published a broad sheet under the title of “Mr. Hobbes’s last Words and dying Legacy.” It was extracted from the “Leviathan,” and was intended to weaken and expose his doctrine yet he could be no very warm antagonist, since there is still extant a letter of his to Mr. Hobbes, wherein he professes himself a great admirer of his parts, and one who would readily receive his instructions. He afterwards gave a strong testimony in favour of liberty, in a pamphlet on the Popish Plot, and the fearof a Popish successor, entitled, “An Appeal from the country to the city for the preservation of his majesty’s person, liberty, property, and the Protestant religion.” This treatise is subscribed Junius Brutus, and is the strongest invective against Popery and Papists that was published even in that age, when almost all the wit of the nation was pointed that way. There are in it likewise such express recommendations of the Duke of Monmouth, as might well hinder the author from owning it, and give it, in the eyes of the lawyers of those times, an air of sedition at least, if not of treason. In 1680, he printed that work which made him most known to the world, “The Life of Apollonius Tyaneus,” which was soon after suppressed, and only a few copies sent abroad. It was held to be the most dangerous attempt, that had been ever made against revealed religion in this country, and was justly thought so, as bringing to the eye of every English reader a multitude of facts and reasonings, plausible in themselves, and of the fallacy of which, none but men of parts and learning can be proper judges. For this reason it is still much in esteem with the Deists, and the few copies that came abroad contributed to raise its reputation, by placing it in the lists of those that are extremely rare. In the same year he published his “Diana of the Ephesians,” which, as the author foresaw, raised a new clamour, many suggesting that, under colour of exposing superstition, he struck at all Revelation, and while he avowed only a contempt of the Heathen, seemed to intimate no great affection for the Christian priesthood. The wit, learning, and zeal of our author, had, by this time, raised him to be the chief of his sect; and he took a great deal of pains to propagate and defend his opinions in his discourses and familiar letters, as well as by his books, but he had the usual inconsistency of the infidel, and we find him owning, in a letter to Dr. Sydenham, that in point of practice, Deism was less satisfactory than the Christian scheme. The noise his former pieces had made, induced him to conceal, industriously, his being the author of a book, entitled, “Religio Laici,” published in 1683, but which is little more than a translation of Lord Herbert’s treatise under the same title and one may reasonably suppose, that the same motives prevailed on him to drop a design, in which it appears he was once engaged, of writing the Life of Mahomet, the Turkish prophet, which however has been since executed, in his manner, by a French author, Boulanvilliers. That the world might perceive Mr. Blount was capable of turning his thoughts to subjects very different from those he had hitherto handled, he, in 16S4, published a kind of introduction to polite literature, which shewed the extent of his knowledge, and the acquaintance he had in the several branches of philosophy and science. This was entitled “Janus Scientiarum or an Introduction to Geography, Chronology, Government, History, philosophy, and all genteel sorts of Learning,” London, 8vo. He concurred heartily in the Revolution, and seems to have had very honest intentions of punishing those who were king James’s evil counsellors, after the government was re-settled, by declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen. He gave another strong testimony of his sincere attachment to his principles, and inviolable love to freedom, by a nervous defence of the liberty of the press wherein he shews that all restraints on it can have no other tendency than to establish superstition and tyranny, by abasing the spirits of mankind, and injuring the human understanding. This little piece, therefore, has been always esteemed one of the best he ever wrote; and has furnished their strongest arguments to many succeeding writers. The warmth of Mr. Blount’s temper, his great affection for king William, and his earnest desire to see certain favourite projects brought about, led him to write a pamphlet, in which, he asserted king William and queen Mary to be conquerors, which was not well relished by the house of commons. The title of this very singular and remarkable piece at large, runs thus: “King William and queen Mary conquerors; or, a discourse endeavouring to prove that their majesties have on their side, against the late king, the principal reasons that make conquest a good title; shewing also how this is consistent with that declaration of parliament, king James abdicated the government, &c. Written with an especial regard to such as have hitherto refused the oath, and yet allow of the title of conquest, when consequent to a just war,” 1693, 4to.

We now draw near to his death, which corresponded more closely with his principles than his friends and admirers will probably allow. After the death of his wife, he became enamoured of her sister, who, we are told, was a lady of great beauty, wit, good humour, virtue, and discretion, and who is said not to have been insensible on her side, but scrupulous only as to the lawfulness of the thing he proposed, viz. marrying her after her sister. Our author wrote a letter on this subject, in which he states the case as of a third person, and treats it with some ingenuity. It is also said that he applied himself to the archbishop of Canterbury, and other divines, who having decided against his opinion, and the lady consequently becoming inflexible, it threw him into a fit of despair, which ended in a frenzy, so that he shot himself in the head. The wound, however, did not prove inured lately mortal he lived after it some clays and retaining still his passion for that lady, he would receive nothing hut from her hands during that period. He died in the month of August, 1693, and was interred with his family in the church of Ridge, in Hertfordshire. After Mr. Blount’s decease, abundance of his private letters were published in a work called “The Oracles of Reason,” compiled by Mr. Gildon, who in his preface gives seme account of our author, in a letter addressed to a ladv, in which he defends Mr. Blount’s manner of dying, and threatens to follow his example but he lived to change his opinions afterwards. These “Oracles of Reason” were afterwards printed with several of our author’s pieces, under the title of “The miscellaneous works of Charles Blount, esq.” 1695, including all we have mentioned, except the pamphlet respecting king William and queen Mary, which is now extremely scarce. As to his character, he was certainly a man of sense and learning, and could write with much seeming strength, where his arguments were not very cogent. His early dislike to superstition hurried him into dangerous mistakes, and inclined him to believe all revealed religion priestcraft, because some priests made a trade of religion. However, if any credit be due to his writings (and sincerity seems to have been rooted in his temper) he was certainly a Deist; foreigners have classed him among Atheists, which Dr. Campbell, in his life in the Biog. Brit, has taken more pains than necessary to contradict.

, father to the preceding, and a considerable writer in the last century, was descended from a very ancient and honourable family, and born December 15, 1602, at his father, sir Thomas Pope Blount’s, seat at Tittenhanger, in Hertfordshire. He received the first tincture of letters in the free-school of St. Alban’s, where he manifested an unusual quickness of parts, and having qualified himself for the university, was removed to Trinity-college, in Oxford, and entered a gentleman commoner there in 1616, before he was full fourteen years of age. Some years he spent in that learned society, with great reputation and universal respect, not so much on account of his family, by which he was nearly related to the founder, sir Thomas Pope, as from his personal merit. For in his youth he was of a cheerful disposition, a sprightly wit, an easy address, and frank and entertaining in conversation, charmed all who were of his acquaintance, and was justly esteemed as promising a genius as any in the university. In the year 1618 he took the degree of B.A. and soon after left Oxford for Gray’s-inn, where for some time he applied himself to the study of the law, and set out on his travels in the spring of the year 1634, being then lately become of age. He made first the tour of France, part of Spain and Italy, and then passing to Venice, he there contracted an acquaintance with a Janizary, with whom he resolved to pass into the Turkish dominions. With this view he embarked on the 7th of May, 1634, on board a Venetian galley, in which he sailed to Spalatro, and thence continued his journey by land to Constantinople. There he was very kindly received by sir Peter Wich, then our ambassador at the Port. His stay at Constantinople was short, because, having an earnest desire to see Grand Cairo, and meeting with a sudden opportunity, he readily embraced it, and after a peregrination of near two years, returned safely into England, where, in 1636, he printed an account of his travels, London, 1636, 4to, which soon after came to a second edition, and in 1638 to a third, in the same size. It was then printed in 12mo, and reached many editions the title of the eighth runs thus “A Voyage into the Levant, being a brief relation of a Journey lately performed from England by the way of Venice, into Dalmatia, Sclavonia, Bosnia, Hungary, Macedonia, Thessaly, Thrace, Rhodes, and Egypt, unto Grand Cairo; with particular observations concerning the modern condition of the Turks, and other people under that empire. By sir Henry Blount, knight.” This book made him known to the world, and so much noticed, that shortly after, king Charles I. who desired to fill his court with men of parts, appointed him one of the band of pensioners, then composed of gentlemen of the first families in the kingdom. In 1638, his father, sir Thomas Pope Blount, died, and left him the ancient seat of Blount’s hall, in Staffordshire, and a very considerable fortune. On the 21st of March in the succeeding year, the king conferred on him the honour of knighthood. At the first breaking out of the civil war, he, following the example of the elder branches of his illustrious family, who were eminently loyal, attended the king at York, at Oxford, and other places, was present at the battle of Edgehill, and had there (according to a tradition in the family) the honour of taking care of the young princes. Afterwards he quitted his majesty’s service, and returned to London, where he was questioned for his adhering to the king but he being now grown a very wary and dexterous speaker, so well excused himself, by alleging his duty on account of his post, that he escaped all censure, and was thenceforward well received. It appears, however, that he had not the courage to be faithful, or that Ije had seriously repented his loyalty to the king, for he complied with the usurping government so implicitly, that in 1651 he was named on a committee of twenty persons, for inspecting the practice of the law, and remedying its abuses. He declared himself very warmly against tithes, and would willingly have reduced the income of parish ministers to one hundred pounds a year. A man of this opinion must have been very acceptable at that time. His next appearance, however, was more to his credit. He sat with Dr. Hichard Zouch, Dr. William Clarke, Dr. William Turner, civilians, and with several other eminent persons in the court of king’s (then called the upper) bench, in Westminster hall, on the 5th of July, 1654, by virtue of a commission from Oliver Cromwell, for trying Don Pantalion Saa, brother to the Portuguese ambassador, for murder, of which, being found guilty, he was, much to the honour of the justice of this nation, by sentence of that court, adjudged to suffer death, and was executed accordingly, Jn, the same year, by the death of his elder brother Thomas Pope Blount, esq. the estate of Tittenhanger descended to him. His great reputation for general knowledge and uncommon sagacity was the reason that his name was inserted in the list of twenty-one commissioners appointed, November 1, 1655, to consider of the trade and navigation of the commonwealth, and how it might be best encouraged and promoted, in which station he did his country eminent service. But whatever his compliances with the forms of government set up between 1650 and 1660, he was received into favour and confidence on the ling’s restoration, and appointed high sheriff of the county of Hertford, in 1661. He lived after that as an English gentleman, satisfied with the honours he had acquired, and the large estate he possessed, and having passed upwards uf twenty years in this independent state, be died on the 9th of October, 1682, when he wanted but four months of four-score, and was two days afterwards interred in the vault of his family, at Ridge in Hertfordshire. As to what appears from his writings, he seems to have had strong parts, a lively imagination, and, in consequence of these, some very singular opinions. His style was manly, flowing, and less affected than could be expected, considering the times in, and the subjects on, which he wrote. A Latin fragment, published by his son, in his “Oracles of Reason,” better explains his sentiments than all the rest of his works, and demonstrates that he was a man of an irregular way of thinking.

Many of our modern writers, and particularly bishop Godwin, fall into frequent inaccuracies concerning this prelate, sometimes mistaking his sirname, and sometimes confounding him with Richard Blount, bishop of Lincoln. After his return from Rome, and being deprived of his high dignity, he retired once again to Oxford, and, as Leland tells us, consoled himself under his misfortunes, by an ardent application to his studies. In this manner he spent sixteen years, during which time he composed several learned works, and amongst them various commentaries on the Holy Scriptures. He was celebrated by his contemporaries for the elegance of his style, and for the extensiveness of his learning. John Ross, of Warwick, no contemptible historian, and who did not live above a century after his time, speaks of him as a prodigy of science. This very learned, though unfortunate person, having attained to a good old age, and to a high reputation for his knowledge, prudence, and piety, died hi 1248, having always shevyn an equanimity of mind, which demonstrated him worthy of the highest station, by enabling him to bear with fortitude his fall from thence.

Leland, in his life of this learned person, owns ingenuously, that he was so unlucky as never to have met with any of those writings which rendered our author’s memory famous, adding a doubt whether any of them were extant. Bale, in the first edition of his work, omitted this life; and when he added it afterwards, he only copied Leland, adding that Blount had written “Summarium Sacrae Facultatis,” lib. 1. “Disceptationes aliquot,”' lib. 1. and several Commentaries on the Scriptures. Pits transcribes Bale, adding the censure mentioned above yet takes no notice of any other works than those which Bale had before noted, and, which is very remarkable, does not give us the beginning of any of them, as his custom always is, wherever he had seen such books, or could meet with any accounts from other people who had seen them. It is therefore more than probable, that he spoke slightingly of his talents, in order to support the credit of the see of Rome, by lessening the reputation of a person whom it had so vehemently persecuted.

, an eminent writer towards the close of the seventeenth century, was the eldest “son of sir Henry Blount before mentioned, and was born at Upper Holloway in the county of Middlesex, Sept. 12, 1649. He was carefully educated under the eye of his father, who took care to acquaint him with the several branches of polite literature most worthy the notice of a person of his rank; and so great was the improvement he made under so able an instructor, that, even in his junior years, he was considered both as a judicious and learned man, and on this account, as well as for other marks of worth and genius, he was, by king Charles II. advanced to the degree of a baronet, by apatent dated Jan. 27,1679, in the thirtieth year of his majesty’s reign, and in the lifetime of sir Henry Blount his father. He was elected burgess for St. Albari’s in Hertfordshire, in the parliaments in the thirtieth and thirty-first of king Charles II. and was knight of the shire in three parliaments after the Revolution, having also the honour to be elected commissioner of accounts for the three last years of his life by the house of commons. He always distinguished himself as a lover of liberty, a sincere friend to his country, and a true patron of learning. His strong attachment for literature and criticism, and his extensive acquaintance with the best writers in all ages and sciences, appearecLfully in the” Censura," which he composed, first for his own use and satisfaction, and then published in the universal language for the benefit of others. His talents for original remark appear from his essays, which, in point of learning, judgment, and freedom of thought, are certainly no way inferior to those of the famous Montaigne. His knowledge and modesty are equally conspicuous in another piece of his, wherein he presents the public with the fruits of his reading on natural history, without depriving those from whom he drew his knowledge, of any part of their reputation. What he has written on poetry was likewise drawn together for his own information, and afterwards sent abroad for public use. Having thus satisfied in his riper years, the great expectations which his friends had of him in his youth, having been steady to one party, without violence towards others, after acquiring honour in his several public characters, esteem in private conversation, and affection in domestic life, he quietly ended his days at his seat at Tktenhanger, June 30, 1697, in the forty-eighth year of his age, and was buried the eighth of July following, in the vault of his family, at Ridge in Hertfordshire. He married Jane, daughter of sir Henry Caesar, of Benington Place in the county of Hertford, knight, and by her left issue five sons and nine daughters, but the baronetage is now extinct.

, a miscellaneous writer of the seventeenth century, was born 1618, at Bardsley in Worcestershire, the son of Myles Blount, of Orleton in Herefordshire, who was the fifth son of Roger Blount of Monkland in the same county. He appears to have supplied the want of an university education by diligent application, and after studying the classics, entered himself of the Inner Temple, and was in due course admitted to the bar. Being, however, a Roman catholic, he never pleaded, but after some time resided mostly at Orleton. A sedentary life having much impaired his health, and the popish plot breaking out in 1678, he was so hurried from place to place, that the fatigue brought on a palsy, of which he died at Orleton, Dec. 26, 1679. Whether by this mention of the popish plot, his biographer means that he was concerned in it, does not appear. Wood seems to insinuate that he was only alarmed, as he was known to be a zealous Roman catholic. He was, however, a man of general knowledge, and an industrious and useful writer. His works are, 1. “The Academy of Eloquence, or complete English rhetoric,” 1654, 12mo, often reprinted. 2. “Glossographia, or a Dictionary of hard words,” Lond. 1656, 8vo. Of this there have been at least five editions. 3. “The Lamps of the Law, and the Lights of the Gospel,” ibid. 1658, 8vo. 4. “Boscobel; or the history of his majesty’s escape after the battle of Worcester,” ibid. 1660. 5. Boscobel, the second part, with the addition of the “Claustrum regale reseratum,” or the king’s concealment at Trent in Somersetshire, published by Mrs. Anne Windham of Trent,” ibid. 1681. Both these now are among the scarce and high-priced curiosities of the seventeenth century. Extracts are given from them in the Addenda to lord Clarendon’s History. 6. “The Catholic Almanac for 1661-2-3, &c.” 7. “Booker rebuked; or animadversions on Booker’s Almanac.” 8. “A Law Dictionary,” ibid. 1671, fol. reprinted with additions. 9. “Animadversions on sir Richard Baker’s Chronicle,” Oxf. 1672, 8vo. 10. “A World of Errors, discovered in Mr. Edmund Philips’s World of Words,” London, 1673, fol. 11. “Fragmenta Antiquitatis. Ancient tenures of land, and jocular customs of some manors,” ibid. 1679, 8vo of which Josiah Beckwith of York published a new edition in 1784. 12. “Animadversions on Blome’s Britannia,” not published. 13. “The art of making Devises, treating of Hieroglyphics, Symbols, &c.” a translation from the French, 1646, 4to. 14. “A catalogue of the Catholics, who lost their lives in the king’s cause, during the civil war,” printed at the end of lord Castlemain’s “Catholic Apology.” 15. “A Chronicle of England,” left imperfect, and a history of Herefordshire, a ms. left with his heirs, but which was probably lost, or has escaped the researches of Mr. Gough. 16. “A pedigree of the Blounts,” printed in Peacham’s “Complete Gentleman,” edit. 1661.

, an English musician of considerable fame, was born in 1648, at North Collingham in Nottinghamshire, and became one of the first set of children of the chapel royal after the restoration. In 1673, he was sworn one of the gentlemen of the chapel, and in 1674, appointed master of the children. In 1685, he was nominated one of the private music to king James II. and in 1687, was likewise appointed almoner and master of the choristers in the cathedral church of St. Paul but, in 1693, he resigned this last place in favour of his scholar Jeremiah Clerk. Blow had his degree of doctor in music conferred on him by the special grace of archbishop Sancroft, without performing an exercise for it at either of the universities. On the death of Purcell, in 1695, he was elected organist of St. Margaret’s, Westminster; and in 1699, appointed composer to the chapel of their majesties king AYilliam and queen Mary, at the salary of 40l. a year, which afterwards was augmented to 73l. A second composer, with the like appointment, was added in 1715, at which time it was required that each should produce a new anthem on the first Sunday of his month in waiting. Dr. Blow died in 1708 and though he did not arrive at great longevity, yet by beginning his course, and mounting to the summit of his profession so early, he enjoyed a prosperous and eventful life. His compositions for the church, and his scholars who arrived at eminence, have rendered his name venerable among the musicians of our country. In his person he was handsome, and remarkable for a gravity and decency in his deportment suited to his station, though he seems by some of his compositions to have been not altogether insensible to the delights of a convivial hour. He was a man of blameless morals, and of a benevolent temper; but was not so insensible to his own worth, as to be totally free from the imputation of pride. Sir John Hawkins furnishes us with an anecdote that shews likewise that he had a rough method of silencing criticism. In the reign of James II. an anthem of some Italian composer had been introduced into the chapel royal, which the king liked very much, and asked Blow if he could make one as good Blow answered in the affirmative, and engaged to do it by the next Sunday when he produced “I beheld and lo a great multitude.” When the service was over, the king sent father Petre to acquaint him that he was much pleased with it: “but,” added Petre, “I myself think it too long.” “That,” answered Blow, “is the opinion of but one fool, and I heed it not.” This provoked the Jesuit so much that he prevailed on the king to suspend Blow, and the consequences might perhaps have been more serious, had not the revolution immediately followed.

, a German poet, was born at Rathenau, in the March of Brandenburgh, Nov. 17, 1739. He studied at Brandenburgh, Berlin, and Francfort on the Oder, and appears to have been intended either for the church or the bar, but preferred philosophy and polite literature, which he cultivated with success, under Ramler and Alexander Baumgarten, and afterwards devoted himself to a retired life in his own country. His first publication, “Lyric Poems,” published at Berlin in 1765, procured him very high reputation and was followed, in 1776, by another volume of Idylls and miscellaneous pieces, in a style of poetry, simple, pure, original, and elegant. In 1785 appeared an additional volume, which contributed to support the character he had acquired. In prose he published what were called “Walks,” moral and critical, and a “Dictionary of German proverbs,” Leipsic, 1782, with their explanations and origin. He died at Rathenau, Aug. 28, 1790, leaving the character of an amiable and virtuous man, beloved by all who knew him, and esteemed by his countrymen as one of the best of their modern poets, although perhaps not belonging to the first class.

, Boudicea, or Bonduca, a renowned British queen of the first century, was the wife of Prasatagus, king of the Iceni (the inhabitants of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdonshires), who in order to secure the friendship and protection of Nero to his wife and family, left the emperor and his daughters co-heirs. But as soon as he was dead, the emperor’s officers seized upon his effects in their master’s name. Boadicea, widow of the deceased king, strongly remonstrated against these unjust proceedings but her complaints only exposed her to farther wrongs and injuries, which she resented in such terms, as provoked the officers to treat her in the most barbarous manner; they caused her to be publicly scourged, and her daughters to be ravished.

This story soon spread through the island, and the public indignation was so generally raised, that all, excepting London, agreed to revolt. The Roman historians themselves acknowledge, that the violence and injustice of the emperor’s officers gave the Britons sufficient reason to lay aside their private animosities, and while they aided the queen to revenge her wrongs, to recover their own liberty. Accordingly she put herself at their head, and earnestly exhorted them to take advantage of the absence of the Roman general, then in the isle of Man, by putting these foreign oppressors all to the sword. They readily embraced the proposal and attacking the Romans wherever they found them, massacred all without distinction of age or sex and it is said that seventy thousand perished on this occasion. In the mean time, Suetonius Paulinus, the Roman general, suddenly returning, marched against the revolted Britons, who had an army of 100,000, or, according to Dio CassiuS, 230,000 men, under the conduct of Boadicea. The tine person of Boadicea, fair and dignified, and her undaunted courage, inspired the most ardent hopes. Paulinus, likewise, was in great perplexity the ninth legion had been defeated by the enemy, and Poenius Posthumus, at the head of a large detachment of the second, refused to join him; so that he had the choice but of two expedients, either to march with his army, not exceeding 10,000, into the open field against his numerous enemies, or shut himself up in some town and wait for them. At first he chose the latter, and remained in London, but soon altered his resolution and instead of retiring from the Br.tons, who were now on the march towards him, he resolved to meet them. The field of battle he pitched upon was a narrow tract of ground, facing a large plain, where they encamped, and his rear was secured by a forest. The Britons traversed the plain in large bodies, exulting in their numbers; and, secure of victory, had brought their wives and children in waggons to be spectators of their actions in the battle, placing them round their entrenchments.

, a Dutchman, and physician to the state in Ireland, in 1649, desesves some notice here, as being the first inquirer into the natural history of Ireland, of which he published an account. He lived to hold his post of physician to the state only eight months, dying either in 1649 or 1650, but compiled part of it some years before he went over, from materials furnished by sir William and sir Richard Parsons, and his own brother, Dr. Arnold Boate, who practised physic eight years at Dublin, and spent some months with him at London, in his way to Paris, in 1644, instructing him how to improve certain forfeited lands he had purchased in Leinster and Ulster. The title of his book is “Ireland’s Natural History, &c.” published by Samuel Hartlib, esq. “for the common good of Ireland, and more especially for the benefit of the adventurers and planters therein,” Lond. 1652, 12mo. Although some of his accounts are imperfect, and his topographical errors numerous, it is wonderful that a stranger should have accomplished so much, and at least run away with the honour of laying the foundation of the natural history of Ireland. He intended a second and a third book of the vegetables and animals, and a fourth of the natives, their old fashions, laws, and customs, and the attempts of their English conquerors to civilize and improve both them and their country, which his brother, in his letter to Hartlib, promised to publish. What he published was afterwards incorporated into a Natural History of Ireland, by several hands, 1736, reprinted 1755, with a new preface and index of chapters, 4to. Boate’s book was translated into French by Briot, and published at Paris 1666, 12mo. We have no farther account of his history; but Weston, in his catalogue of English writers on husbandry, says that his true name was Beats.

, a German horticulturist, who came to England about the middle of the seventeenth century, was appointed first superintendant of the physic-garden at Oxford, founded in 1632 by Henry earl of Danby. Some writers call him doctor, and some professor of botany, but he was neither, nor was there any professor, properly so called, before Dillenius. The “Catalogus -Plantarum” in this garden, published at Oxford in 1648, 12mo, was drawn up by Bobart, and is a very favourable proof of his zeal and diligence. Under his care and that of his son, the garden at Oxford continued to flourish for many years. The old man, according to Wood, lived in the gardenhouse, and died there Feb. 4, 1679, aged eighty-one. Mr. Granger relates an anecdote that “on rejoicing days old Bobart used to have his beard tagged with silver.” He left two sons, Jacob and Tillemant, who were both employed in the physi-garden. Jacob, who seems to have been a man of some learning, published the second volume of Morison’s “Oxford history of Plants,” 1699, fol. Of him too, an anecdote is told which implies somewhat of a humourous disposition. He had transformed a dead rat into the feigned figure of a dragon, which imposed upon the learned so far, that “several fine copies of verses were wrote on so rare a subject.” Bobart afterwards owned the cheat but it was preserved for some years, as a master-piece of art. Dr. Pulteney thinks Bobart was alive in 1704; but he appears to have lived considerably longer, as Dr. Abel Evans dedicated “Vertumnus,” a poetical epistle, to him in 1713. A descendant of this family, Tillemant Bobart, is still well known to all who wish for civil treatment and a safe carriage on the road to Oxford.

At Florence, as at Paris, Boccaccio’s time was divided between mercantile employment, to which he had a fixed dislike, and his taste for literature, which he contrived to indulge whenever possible. This became more easy at Naples, where his father had sent him in 1333, that he might be detached entirely from his studies, and acquire a zest for commercial pursuits; but here, during a residence of eight years, instead of giving his company only to merchants, he formed an acquaintance with the most eminent men of letters, both Neapolitans and Florentines, who lived there under the liberal patronage of king Robert. There is no reason, however, to suppose that Boccaccio profited by this monarch’s bounty, but he appears to have acquired the good graces of one of the king’s natural daughters, a married lady, for whom he composed several pieces both in prose and verse, and whom, he often mentions un ier the name of Fiammetta. Generally admired for his personal accomplishments, wit, and. spirit, and happy in his attachment to a king’s daughter, it is not very surprising that the fulfilment of his father’s wishes as to trade should become more and more difficult. The taste which his mistress had for poetry, his acquaintance with men of letters, the deep impression made on his mind by an accidental view of Virgil’s tomb, the presence of the celebrated Petrarch, who was received with the highest distinction at the court of Naples, in 1341, and who was about to receive the same honours at Rome, and the acquaintance Boccaccio had formed with him, all contributed, with his natural bent, to decide irrevocably that he should be a scholar and a poet. On his return to Naples, after a residence of two years with his father at Florence, he was favourably received by the queen, who now reigned in the room of her deceased husband, and it is said that it was to please her, as well as his beloved Fiammetta, that he began to write the “Decameron,” which unquestionably places him. in the first rank of Italian prose writers. In the mean time, his father finding it impossible to resist his inclination for literature, ceased to urge him more on the subject of trade, and only conditioned with him that he should study the canon law. Boccaccio endeavoured to please him, but found the Decretals worse than the ledger and the day-book, and returned with fresh ardour to the muses and the classics, studying to acquire a purer Latin style than hitherto, and to add t& his treasures a knowledge of the Greek. This he learned partly in Calabria, where he frequently went, or in Naples, where he had formed an intimacy with Paul of Perugia, an able Greek grammarian, and librarian to king Robert. He studied also mathematics, astronomy, or rather astrology, under a celebrated Genoese, Andelone del Nero, and even paid some attention to the outlines of theology, but it does not appear that he went much farther.

On the death of his father, being entirely at liberty, and with some little property, to pursue his inclination, he first settled at Florence, where his studies were interrupted only by his pleasures, and some very honourable employments confided to him by his fellow citizens. Among others, one must have been peculiarly gratifying to him. This was his being sent to Padua in 1350, to announce to Petrarch the news of his recall, and the restitution of his father’s property, who had formerly been banished from Florence, and died in exile. Such an errand had a natural tendency to cement their friendship, Some years after, when Boccaccio had spent his little property, partly in purchasing books, and partly in gratifying his taste for pleasure, he found in Petrarch a friend, who, besides assisting his wants, gave him such affectionate and judicious advice as produced a very salutary change in his conduct. Before this, while suffering under the reflections of his follies, in 1361, a friar had persuaded him to renounce the world, and all that could be called profane learning. The fact seems to have been, that Boccaccio, in his Decamerone, which first appeared in 1353, had satirized the licentious lives of the monks, and this friar came to him with a story of his having seen a vision, and being commissioned to warn him of his danger, if he did not renounce his sins, and burn his Decamerone: and Boccaccio was so alarmed, that he actually put on the ecclesiastical habit, (for which, as being a natural son, he was obliged to apply to the pope for a dispensation) and resumed the study of theology; but he soon found that this was too late, and too averse from his habits, and he therefore had recourse to Petrarch, who persuaded him to remove to Certaldo, where he had a small estate, and pursue his literary labours in that retirement.

Before this time, all his works, and they only works of amusement, were written in Italian, but now he began to compose on the subjects of literature aud history in Latin, and one of these treatises was the first modern work that gave any account of the mythological notions of the antients. We have already noticed that he was well acquainted with Greek, and brought with him, at his own expense, from Venice to Florence, Leontius Pilatus of Thessalonica, and entertained him in his house for three years. During this time he improved his knowledge of Greek, and Leontius went over the Iliad and Odyssey with him, translating it into Latin. Boccaccio wa_s the first who was at the expence of importing from Greece Mss. of both the Iliad and Odyssey, among many other valuable Mss. both Greek and Latin, by which he endeavoured to introduce a taste for these valuable remains of antiquity, and particularly for the Greek authors, in preference to the scholastic studies, which alone were at this time pursued in the schools.

While at Certaldo, he was not forgot. The high character he had already attained induced the republic of Florence to send him on two embassies to pope Urban V. which he accomplished to their satisfaction, but after his return to Certaldo, he experienced a long illness, which left a great degree of langour and dejection. Recovering, however, from this, he took upon him an employment peculiarly gratifying to him in every respect. He had always been a great admirer of Dante, had often copied his works, and inew them almost by heart . The Florentines, who had persecuted and banished that celebrated poet, were now disposed to make some reparation, by instituting, by a decree of the senate, a professorship for lectures on his poems, and Boccaccio was appointed to this new chair. How much he was delighted in an employment, not only highly honourable, but congenial to his habits, may easily be conceived. The pains he took, however, retarded his recovery from his late illness, and the death of Petrarch, of which he was at this time informed, appears tohave'hastened his own. He became more and more weak, and did not survive his illustrious friend and master above a year, dying at Certaldo, Dec. 21, 1375. He was buried there in the church of St. James and St. Philip, and the following inscription, written by himself, was engraven on his tomb

A short time before his death he made his will, bequeathing what property he had to his two nephews, the sons of James, his elder brother. The most valuable legacy, however, was that of his books, which were almost all copies by his own hand, or collected at great expence. These he left to one father Martin, an Augustine, who was his executor, and in this perhaps his adviser, with a view that they might become the property of his convent., They were, however, lost to the world. A celebrated scholar, Niccolo Niccoli, in the succeeding century, built in that convent a library for the express purpose of preserving Boccaccio’s books, but time destroyed them and it. It has been remarked as somewhat singular, that in this will, Boccaccio makes no mention of a natural son he had in his youth, and who was settled at Florence, yet this young man superintended his funeral, and caused the above inscription to be engraven on his tomb. He was universally regretted at Florence, where, in his poverty, he had not met with very liberal attentions. Verses, however, are more easily bestowed than money, and the poets of the time, particularly Sachetti, hastened with their contributions to his memory. Two medals also were struck, and twenty years afterwards, the republic wishing to pay higher honour to him as well as to Dante and Petrarch, deliberated on a magnificent monument to be erected to the three great ornaments of their country in the church of St. Maria del Fiore, but this was never carried into execution.

The predominant passion of Boccaccio, in youth, was the love of pleasure tempered by that of study; as he advanced in age, study became his sole delight. He had no ambition either for rank or fortune. The public employments confided to him came unasked, and when he could lay them down, he did so. He was equally averse to any domestic employments which were likely to take up much of his time, and would accept of no private tutorships, which so often eventually promote a man’s interest. His character was frank and open, but not without a degree of pride, which, however, particularly when he was in low circumstances, kept him from mean compliances. With respect to his talents, it is eviuent that he had always made a false estimate of them he had the fullest confidence in his poetical powers, yet nothing he wrote in verse rises above mediocrity, and many of his prose Italian writings desefve no higher praise. He is superior and inimitable only in his tales, on which he did not pride himself, nor indeed set any value. He fell into the same error with his master Petrarch in supposing that his serious Latin works would be the source of his fame, which he owes entirely to his Tales, as Petrarch owes his to his love-verses. All his Latin writings are crude and hasty. * In them, says Paul Cortesius, “he labours with thought, and struggles to give it utterance but his sentiments find no adequate vehicle, and the lustre of his native talents is obscured by the depraved taste of the times.” In his youth, he was flattered as having obtained the second place in poetry, his admiration for Dante not permitting him to aspire to the first, and the sonnets of Petrarch were not yet known. It is to his honour, however, that as soon us he saw the latter, he threw into the fire the greater part of his lyric compositions, sonnets, canzoni, &e. and seems to have determined to apply himself entirely to the perfection of Italian prose, in which it must be confessed he has succeeded admirably. As a recent event has rendered some of Boccaccio’s writings an object, of research among collectors, we shall enter somewhat more fully than is usual into a detail of their editions. Among his Latin works, we have, 1. “De genealogia Deorum lib. XV. De montium, sylvarum, lucuum, fluviorum, stagnorum, et marium nominibus, liber.” These two were first printed together in folio without date, but supposed to be at Venice, and. anterior to 1472, in which year appeared the second edition, at Venice, with that date. The third was published at the same place in 1473, and followed by others at Reggio, Vincenza, Venice, Paris, and Basle, which last, in 1532, is accompanied with notes and supplements. This account of the genealogy of the Gods, or the heathen mythology, must have been the fruit of immense reading, and as no information on the subject existed then, a high value was placed on it, although it has been since superseded by more recent and accurate works. He has been very unjustly accused of quoting authors no where else to be found, as if he had invented their names, but it is surely more reasonable to think they might be known in his days, although their memory has since perished, or that he might have been himself deceived. This same work, translated into Italian by Joseph Betussi, has gone through twelve or thirteen edi-. tions, the first, of Venice, 1547, 4to. There are -also two French translations, the first anonymous, Paris, 1498, fol. and 1531, also in fol. the second by Claude Wittard, Paris, 1578, 8vo. The lesser book, or Dictionary of the names of mountains, forests, &c. was also translated into Italian by Niccolo Liburnio, and printed in 4to. without date or place, but there is a second edition at Florence, 1598, 8vo. 2. “De casibus Virorum et Foeminarum illustrium libri IX.” Paris, 1535, 1544, fol. and at Vincenza the same year translated into Italian by Betussi, Venice, 1545, 8vo, and often reprinted. But there must have been an edition long previous to the oldest of these, as we find it translated into English in 1494, by John Lydgate, monk of Edmundsbury, at the commandment of Humphrey duke of Gloucester, under the title of “John Boccace of the Fall of Princes and Princesses .” It has likewise been translated and often reprinted in French, Spanish, and German. The first of the Spanish translations is dated Seville, 1495, and the first of the French was printed at Bruges in 1476, folio, then at Paris, 1483, at Lyons the same year, and again at Paris in 1494, 1515, folio, and 1578, 8vo. 3. “De claris Mulieribus.” The first edition of this is without place or date, in the black letter the second is that of Ulm, 1473, fol. followed by those of Louvain and Berne from 1484 to 1539. Of this work the Italians have two translations, one by Vincent Bagli, a Florentine, Venice, 1506, 4to; the other by Betussi, who prefixed a life of Boccaccio, Venice, 1545, and 1547, 8vo. The first edition of the Spanish translation is dated Seville, 1528, fol. That of the German translation is dated Augsburgh, 1471, and was followed by one at Ulm, 1473, 4to. The French have two translations, the oldest 1493, fol. 4. “Eclogae,” sixteen in number, and printed with those of Virgil, Calphurnius, &c. Florence, 1504, 8vo. They are also inserted in the “Bucolicorum auctorcs,” Basil, 1546, 8vo. Like Petrarch, he introduces the events of his time in these eclogues, with the principal personages under fictitious names, but he has furnished us with a key to these in a letter to P. Martin de Signa, his confessor, of which Manni has givdn an extract in his history of the Decameron. His Italian works in verse are, 5. “La Teseide,” the first attempt at an epic in Italian, and written in the ottava rima, or heroic verse, of which Boccaccio is considered as the inventor; printed at Ferrara, 1475, fol. Venice, 1528, 4to, and translated into French, 1597, 12mo. 6. “Amorosa visione,” Milan, 1520 and 1521, 4to, and with grammatical observations and an apology for Boccaccio by Claricio d'Lmola, Venice, 1531, 8vo. This singular poem is divided into fifty cantos or chapters, which contain five triumphs, namely those of wisdom, glory, riches, love, and fortune, written in the terza rima, with a curious contrivance, gratifying to the bad taste of the times, by which the initial letters of each stanza are made to compose an acrostic in praise of the princess Mary, whom elsewhere he celebrates under the name of Fiammetta. 7. “II Filastrato,” a poetical romance in heroic verse, the hero of which is young Troilus, the son of Priam, and the subject, his amours with Chryseis, whom the poet does not make the daughter of Chryses, but of Calchas. Of this there are four editions Bologna, 1498, 4to, Milan, 1499, 4to, Venice 1501 and 1528, 4to. 8. “Nimfale Fiesolano.” It is thought that in this poem Boccaccio has concealed, under the disguise of a pastoral fiction, an amorous adventure which happened in his time in the environs of Florence. The first edition is in 4to. without place or date; the second is of Venice 1477, and was followed by many others at Venice and Florence, and one recently of Paris, 1778, 12mo. It was translated into French by Anthony Guercin du Crest, and printed at Lyons, 1556, 16mo. 9. “Rime,” or miscellaneous poems. We have noticed that he burned the greater part of his minor poems, but those which were dispersed in manuscript in various hands, have been often collected, and the publication of them announced. M. Baldelli, who has since, in 1806, published a good life of Boccaccio, collected all of these poems he could find, and printed them at Leghorn, 1802, 8vo.

Of his Italian works in prose, we may notice, 10. “Il Filocopo, owero amorosa fatica, &c.” a romance written by our author when very young, defective in interest, and altogether so in style, when compared with what he wrote afterwards. The first edition of this romance is without place or date the others, which are all rare, are those of Venice, 1472, Florence, 1472, Milan 1476 and 1478, all in fol. Venice, 1514, 4to, and often reprinted during the same century, and twice translated into French, Paris, 1542, fol. &c. 11. “L'Ammorosa Fiammetta,” another romance not much more valuable than the preceding. Fiammetta, as we have already noticed, is the princess Mary of whom he was enamoured, and Pamphile, whose absence she is made deeply to regret, was himself. Whether this was a real or a poetical amour is not very clear. The romance was first published without date or place, in 4to, but is supposed to have appeared at Padua, with a Latin title, and, at the end of the volume, the date of 1472; the second, which has not the place, is dated 1480, 4to, and was followed by others in the sixteenth century at Florence, Venice, &c. and a French and Spanish translation, often reprinted. 12. “L'Urbano,” Florence, 1598, 8vo, translated into French under the title “Urbain le Mescogneu,” Lyons, without date, 4to, black letter, was a piece which Boccaccio is said to have written to divert his melancholy for the death of his friend Petrarch, but Mazzuchelli and other critics consider it as spurious. 13. “Ameto, or Nimfale d'Ameto,” written with a mixture of prose and verse, is supposed to relate to a real adventure concealed under a poetical allegory. It has gone through a great number of editions, Rome and Venice, 1478, 4to; Trevisa, 1479, 4to Venice, 1503, fol. Rome, 1520, 4to; Florence, 1521, 8vo. 14. “II Corbaccio, o sia Laberinto d'Amore,” a very bitter and indecent satire on a female who had given him some offence after his return to Florence. In spite of the licentiousness of this work, the style has recommended it to the curious, but we doubt whether this was the cause of its passing through so many editions: Florence, 1487, 4to, Venice, 1516, 24mo, &c. &c. and a valuable edition, Paris, 1569, 8vo, by Corbinelli, with a preface and notes. Belleforest translated it into French, Paris, 1571, 1573, and there was a second translation or imitation, by Premont, entitled “Songe de Boccace, ou de Labyrinthe d' Amour,” Paris, 1699, &c. in which the editor has abridged so much, and added so much, that it can scarcely be called Boccaccio’s work. 15. “Origine Vitaet costumi di Dante Alighieri,” Rome, 1544, 8vo, Florence, 1576, 8vo. lit this life of Dante we have many anecdotes not elsewhere to be found, but the author upon, the whole inclines too much to the romantic to attend sufficiently to the strict veracity of the biographer yet the purity of the style recommends it, and the affection and sincerity with which he praises Dante, form, perhaps, a curiosity, from one who had the ambition to be placed so near him. This is naturally connected with 16. “Commento sopra la Commedia di Dante Alighieri,” a valuable work, not only for style, but for the many difficult passages of Dante which are admirably illustrated, although it must be confessed they are at the same time intermixed with much matter that has very little connection with the text. It was an abridgement of the lectures which he gave at Florence, when attacked with the disorder which shortened his days, and was not printed until th;e last century. It extends only to the 17th chapter of the Inferno, and forms the two last volumes of the edition of Boccaccio’s prose works (with the exception of the Decameron) published at Naples (with the false title of Florence), in 1724, 5 vols. 8vo. Lastly, we come to his 17. “II Decamerone,” the work on which his fame is permanently established, and which, of all works, it is difficult to characterize in few words. The assertion, that the greater part of the hundred novels which it contains are taken from the ancient French writers of tales, only shows that those who maintain this opinion are not acquainted either with these writers, or with the Decamerone, of which, at most, ten of the stories only are imitated from the French Fabliaux, or taken from the same remote sources, and it is equally unjust to consider them merely as a collection of amorous and licentious stories. The greater part of the poets, indeed, who have stolen from him have stolen only what is of this obnoxious description, and therefore easily brought a reproach on the whole. Boccaccio, in this work, depicts, as on a vast canvass, men of all conditions, all characters and all ages and events of every kind, comic and serious. He exhibits models of every species of eloquence, and carries the purity and elegance of the Italian language to a degree of perfection unknown before his time. Perhaps few works of the kind have ever been so popular. For more than three centuries it has gone through repeated editions, of which an hundred at least may be mentioned, and his biographer very properly asks, what criticism can stand against this fact

In order to appreciate these editions, it is necessary to advert to the fate of this extraordinary work in the press. For about a century, it was circulated in manuscript, and liberties of every kind were taken at every transcription. At length it was printed for the first time, as has been supposed, in 1470, and run through various editions to the end of the fifteenth, and for more than sixty years of the sixteenth century. During this period it was prohibited by the popqs Paul IV. and Pius IV. who were in this respect more scrupulous than their twenty-five or twenty-six predecessors in the papal chair. Two grand dukes of Tuscany, Cosmo I. and Francis I. applied one after the other to two other popes, Pius V. and Gregory XIII. in consequence of which the academicians were employed to reform the Decameron important corrections were made, and many passages suppressed, and in this state various editions were permitted to be printed. But with respect to the ancient editions, it is now necessary to observe that there are two opinions, which we shall state, without attempting to reconcile. We have already noticed that the first edition has been supposed to have been printed in 1470, without a date but on the other hand, it is contended that the edition of 1471, by Valdarfer, is not only the first with a date (which those who maintain the existence of the edition of 1470 are disposed to allow), but that in fact there was no previous edition. Those who are of this latter opinion very naturally ask their antagonists to produce the edition of 1470, or an edition without date that can be supposed of that period. In England it is certain that no such edition is known but the French bibliographers seem to be of a different opinion. Ginguene 1 to whom we are indebted for the greater part of this life of Boccaccio, who has written the literary history of Italy, and is considered in France, we apprehend justly, as their first critic and bibliographer in Italian literature this writer speaks of the first edition without a date in the following terms “Elle est sans date et sans nom de lieu ni d'imprimeur, in-fol. en caracteres inegaux et mal formes.” (Hist. Litt. d'ltalie, vol. III. p. 129). It remains, therefore, for the reader to determine whether this is the language of a man who has seen the book, and describes what he has seen; and if this be decided in the affirmative, the existence of the edition is proved, as far as his authority goes. But it must be confessed Ginguene goes no fa ther. He says nothing of any library which possesses this treasure, nor of its supposed value but when he comes to speak of Valdarfer’s edition of 1471, he informs us that it- has been valued by bibliomaniacs (bibliomanes) at 3000 francs, or 125l. And this brings us to notice the copy of this edition recently sold from the duke of Roxburgh’s library, to the marquis of Blandford, for the immense (and with respect to the value of books, the unprecedented) sum of Two Thousand Two Hundred And Sixty Pounds. In the catalogue of this library, it is stated that “no other perfect copy is yet known to exist, after all the fruitless researches of more than three hundred years;” but, notwithstanding this, we find that the French bibliographers set a value on the edition, as if copies, however rare, were still occasionally to be found. We cannot suppose that the French booksellers or collectors would fix a price-current on an article which had not been seen, for three hundred years, still less that our authority is speaking of imperfect copies, the value of which can only be estimated by the quantum of imperfection. It remains also to be noticed that the French bibliographers speak precisely with the same familiarity of the Junti edition of Florence, 1527, 4to, which they value at 600 francs, or 25l. and which sold at the Roxburgh sale for 29 1. no great advance upon the French price. They certainly speak both of this edition, and of the 1471, as of rare occurrence, but by no means hint that the latter is of that extreme rarity imputed to it in this country .

The third edition,of Mantua, 1472, fol. Salviati thinks the best of all the early editions, the scarcity of which may now be accounted for by the following extraordinary fact. As soon as they appeared, and became generally read, the monks who felt that much of the satire was directed against them, issued their anathemas and prohibitions and in 1497, Savonarola excited the abhorrence of the Florentines to such a degree, that they collected all the Decamerons, Dantes, and Petrarchs they could find, and burnt them together the last day of the carnival. It is of importance to notice that, of the edition of 1527, a very well executed counterfeit was printed at Venice in 1729, with the date of Florence 1527 at the end. The next valuable edition is that corrected by the academicians of Florence, by order of the grand duke, and with the approbation of pope Gregory XIII. and published at Florence by the Junti, 1573, 4to. Longuerue observes that it is a curious thing to see at the head of this edition a privilege of Gregory XIII. who says, that in this he follows the steps of Pius V. his predecessor of blessed memory, and which threatens with severe punishments, all those who shall dare to give any disturbance to those booksellers to whom this privilege is granted. There is also a decree of the inquisition in favour of this edition. The edition of Salviati, which was also subjected to reform, Venice, 1584, 4to, maybe consulted with the preceding for the sake of the curious corrections and amendments introduced; and perhaps the reader may discover a great difference in the purity of the style between the original and the reformed part. With respect to the translations of the Decameron, they are too numerous, and in general too unimportant, for a particular detail. Every nation has its Decameron, but as the purpose of the translators was mere amusement, they seem to have been little anxious about the author’s reputation. The English editions particularly have conveyed his Tales in a most vulgar and ungraceful style. They were first translated in 1566, by "William Paynter, and have been often reprinted since in various forms the best, we think, was an edition in two volumes, Loud. 1804, 8vo, in which the editor has taken much pains in repressing the licentiousness of our author, and has omitted entirely those tales which could not be rendered proper for general perusal. In a critical view, however, the work must be allowed to be the production of a great genius. The generality of the beaux esprits in. Italy agree that the Decameron is the best book in their language, at least in point of style. It is surely very remarkable that Boccaccio should' carry a barbarous language to its perfection all at once a language left entirely to the people, and which had orly a small part of its rust rubbed off by the immortal Dante.

, an artist who flourished about 1496-, is among the Cremonese, what Griilandajo, Mantegna, Vannucci, Francia, arc in their respective schools the best modern among the ancients, and the best ancient among the moderns. He was the master of Garofalo before his journey to Rome in 1500. The birth of the Madonna with other histories of her life, and that of the Saviour in the frieze of the Dnotno at Cremona, are works of Boccaccino. The style is partly original, partly approaches that of Pietro Perugino less co-ordinate in composition, less agreeable in the airs of the heads, weaker in chiaroscuro hut richer in drapery, more varied in colour, more spirited in attitudes, and perhaps not less harmonious or pleasing in landscape and architecture. His great defect is the short and stumpy appearance which an immoderate load of drapery often gives to his figures. It is probable that he was at Rome, as Vasari pretends that he there reviled the works of Michael Angelo and what followed, as related by the same historian, admits of too much doubt to deserve attention. He died, according to Vasari, in 1518, aged fifty-eight. His son, Ca.Millo Boccaccino, was born at Cremona, in 1511, where he received the first instructions in the art of painting from his father and for some time he was obliged to conform himself to the -style and manner of his instructor. But he determined to quit that hard dry manner of colouring, to which he had been accustomed, and by degrees assumed a style of colour equally remarkable for its suavity and strength. The best remaining specimens of his art are in the church of St. Sigismondo, at Cremona; where, among the Four Evangelists, the figure of St. John, bent upwards in contrast with the arched vault, in boldness of foreshortening and truth of perspective, emulates the style of Correggio. He died very young, at a time when there was a great expectation of his arriving at very high perfection, in 1546.

In 1750, she set out on her travels through England, Holland, and Italy, and published the result of them in “Letters” on her return. Her personal appearance procured her friends and admirers wherever she went, and when she again took up her residence in France, her house became the rendezvous of the most distinguished men of genius of the age, all of whom she survived. She indeed outlived two ages of literature, the latter of which was shortened by the horrors of revolutionary cruelty, from which by some means she was enabled to escape. She died Aug. 1802, at the very advanced age of ninety-two. In early life she was married to a financier, who left her a very young and beautiful widow. Her private character is represented as exceedingly amiable, and her accomplishments, taste, manners, as of the highest order but modern French critics seem not disposed to allot her so high a rank among the votaries of the muses, as her content poraries did and her works, it must be confessed, have not been of late years in much request, there having been, no edition called for since that of 1770, 3 vols. 8vo, A very indifferent translation of her “Letters concerning England, Holland, and Italy,” was published at London in that year, 2 vols. 12ino.

, a satirical wit, was born at Loretto in 1556, the son of an architect of a Roman family, about the beginning of the seventeenth century. The method he took to indulge his turn for satire, or rather plot of his publications, was the idea that Apollo, holding his courts Oh Parnassus, heard the complaints of the wholeworld, and gave judgment as the case required. He was received into the academies of Italy, where he gained great applause by his political discourses, and his elegant criticisms. The cardinals Borghese and Cajetan having declared themselves his patrons, he published his “News from Parnassus/' and” Apollo’s Secretary,“a continuation which being well received, he proceeded further, and printed his” Pietra di Paragone“wherein he attacks the court of Spain, setting forth their designs against the liberty of Italy, and inveighing particularly against themfor the tyranny they exercised in the kingdom of Naples. The Spaniards complained of him in form, and were determined at any rate to be revenged. Boccalini was frightened, and retired to Venice. Some time after he was murdered in a surprising manner. He lodged with one of his friends, who having got up early one morning, left Boccalini in bed; when a minute after four armed men entered his chamber, and gave him so many blows with bags full of sand that they left him for dead so that his friend, upon his return, found him unable to utter one word. Great search was made at Venice for the authors of this murder and though they were never discovered, yet it was universally believed that they were set to work. by the court of Spain. This story, however, has been called in question by Mazzuchelli, and seems indeed highly improbable at least it can by no means stand upon its present foundation. His attacking the court of Spain in his” Pietra di Paragone,“is said to have been the cause of his murder but another cause, if he really was murdered, must be sought, for he died, by whatever means, Nov. 10, 1613, and the” Pietra“was not published until two years after that event. It appears likewise from one of his letters, that he had kept the manuscript a profound secret, communicating it only to one confidential frienc!, to whom the above letter was written. Besides, the register of the parish in which he died, mentions that on Nov. 10, 1613, the signor Trajan Boccalini died at the age of fiftyseven, of a cholic accompanied with a fever. Apostolo Zeno, vrho mentions this circumstance in his notes on Fontanini’s” Italian Library,“adds, that in a speech publicly delivered at Venice in 1<320, in defence of Trissino, whom. Boccalini had attacked, ample mention rs made of him, who had then been dead seven years, and in terms of severe censure; but not a word was said of his assassination, which could not have then been a secret, nor could there be any reason for concealing it. If indeed he suffered in the manner reported, it formed an exact counterpart of what he records to have happened to Euclid the mathematician. Euclid had demonstrated, as a mathematical problem, that all the lines both of princes’” and private men’s thoughts meet in one centre namely, to pick money out of other men’s pockets and put it into their own and for this he was attacked by some of his hearers who beat him with sand-bags and perhaps, as a foundation for the story, some of Boccalini’s readers may have said that he ought to have been punished in the same manner. Boccal'mi’s works are: 1. “Itagguagli di Parnaso, centuria prima,” Venice, 1612, 4to. “Centuria secxinda,” ibid. 1613, 4to, neither published long enough before his death to have excited much general odium. These two parts were afterwards frequently reprinted in one volume. There is unquestionably in this work, much to make it popular, and mnch to excite hostility. His notions on government, liberty, &c. were too free for his age and country and his treatment of literary characters is frequently captious and unjust, yet the work upon the whole is amusing, and original in its plan. A third part was published by Jerome Briani, of Modena, at Venice, 165O, 8vo, and die whole was translated and published in English, tinder the inspection of Hughes the poet, 1705, lol. 2. “Pietra del Paragone politico,” Cosmopoli (Amsterdam), 1615, 4to, and often, reprinted in various sizes; that of Amsterdam, 1653, 24mo, is reckoned the best. It has been translated into Latin, French, and English, first in 1626, 4to, and afterwards in Hughes’s edition and into German. This “political touchstone” bears hard on the Spanish monarchy, and may be considered as a supplement to his “News from Parnassus.” 3. “Commentari sopra Cornelio Tacito,” Geneva, 1669, 4to, Cosmopoli (Amsterdam), 1677, 4to, and afterwards in a collection published under the title “La Bilancia politica di tutte le opere di Trajano Boccalini,” &c. with notes and observations by the chevalier Louis du May, at Castellana, 167S, 3 vols. 4to. The first two volumes of this scarce work contain the Tacitus, on which the annotator, not content with being very free in his religious opinions, takes some extraordinary liberties with the text, and therefore they were soon inserted in the Index Expurgatorius. They contain, however, many curious facts which tend to illustrate the political affairs of the time. The third volume is filled with political and historical letters, collected hy Gregorio Leti but although these are signed with Boccalini’s name, they are supposed to have been written by his son, and by the editor Leti, a man not very scrupulous in impositions of this kind. 6. “La Segretaria d'Apollo,” Amst. 1653, 24mo, a sort of continuation of the “Ragguagli,” very much in Boccalini’s manner, but most probably we owe it to the success of his acknowledged works.

, an eminent musical composer, was born at Lucca, Jan. 14, 1740, where he resided till 1768, when he went to Paris, and where he continued till 1780. He then removed to Madrid, where he died in 1806. His instrument was the violoncello, and he has perhaps supplied the performers on bowed-instruments and lovers of music with more excellent compositions than any master of the present age, except Haydn. His style is at once bold, masterly, and elegant. There are movements in his works, of every style, and in the true genius of the instruments for which he writes, that place him high in rank among the greatest masters who have ever written for the violin or violoncello. There i$ perhaps no instrumental music more ingenious, elegant, and pleasing, than his quintets; in which invention, grace, modulation, and good taste, conspire to render them, when well executed, a treat for the most refined hearers and critical judges of musical composition. The works of this excellent composer would be of use to judicious collectors, as his genius, taste, and judgment were too fertile and refined, to suffer him to commit to paper frivolous or indigested thoughts. His productions of forty years ago have lost nothing of their worth, nor will forty years more wholly deprive them of their bloom. They consist of fifty-eight collections of symphonies, quintets, &c. In the religious cast he has only one piece, a “Stabat mater.”

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born at Bologna in 1488, of a noble family. In his studies he made uncommon proficiency, and had distinguished himself at the early age of twenty by his very learned work on Plautus. According to the custom of the age, he attached himself to various princes, but at first to the celebrated Albert Pio, count of Carpi. Having become imperial orator at the court of Rome, he obtained by his talents and knowledge of business, the titles of chevalier and count Palatine, and was intrusted with some important functions, such as that of bestowing the degree of doctor, of creating notaries, and even legitimizing natural children. At Bologna he was professor of Greek and Latin, rhetoric and poetry, and was chosen one of the Auziani in 1522. Having acquired a handsome fortune, he built a palace, and in 1546 founded an academy in it, named from himself Academia Bocchiana, or Bocchiale. It was also called Ermatena, agreeable to its device, on which was engraven the two figures of Mercury and Minerva. He also established a printing-office in his house, and he and his academicians employed themselves in correcting the many beautiful editions which they printed. Bocchi was a good Hebrew scholar, and well versed in antiquities and history, particularly that of his own country. The senate of Bologna employed him on writing the history of that city, and bestowed on him the title of Historiographer. Cardinal Sadolet, the two Flaminio’s, John Phil. Achillini, and Lcl. Greg. Giraldi, were among his particular friends, who have all spoken very favourably of him in their works. This last was much attached to him, and it is supposed that he meant to express this attachment by giving him the name of Phileros (loving friend), or Philerote, which is on the title of some of his works. Bocchi died at Bologna, Nov. 6, 1562. He wrote, 1. “Apologia in Plautum, cui accedit vita Ciceronis authore Plutarcho,” Bologn.

, an ingenious naturalist, was born at Palermo, in Sicily, April 24th 1633, of a wealthy and respectable family, originally from Savona in Genoa. To improve himself in natural history, particularly in botany, to which he was early attached, he travelled over Sicily, Corsica, Malta, many parts of Germany, Holland, and England, conversing with the most eminent literary characters in the places he visited, with whom he afterwards kept up a correspondence. At Paris he became acquainted with the abbé Bourdalot, to whom he communicated various observations he had made, which, were published at Amsterdam in 1674 under the title “Recherches et observations d'Histoire Naturelle.” In the course of his travels, he was admitted doctor in medicine at Padua, was elected member of the Academ. Naturae Curios, and made botanist to the grand duke of Tuscany. In 1682, he entered among the Cistertian monks at Florence, and with the habit of the order took the name of Sylvio, which he affixed to his latter works, but he was still permitted to continue his researches in natural history. Returning at length to Sicily, he retired to one of the houses of the Cistertians near Palermo, where he died, Dec. 22, 1704. As he had been indefatigable in his researches, his colleciion of plants and other natural productions was very considerable. Sherrard, who saw his hortus siccus, or specimens of dried plants, in 1697, was so struck with their number and beauty, that he engaged him to give a catalogue of them to the public, which he did in his “Musrco plante rare,” published at Venice in 4to, the same year. The catalogue was also published by itself. Several of his works appear to have been printed while he was on his travels; the first of them, “De abrotano mare monitum,” in 1668 and in the same year, “Manifesturn botanicum, de plantis Siculis,” Catatue, 4to. By an advertisement at the beginning of the work he offers to botanists the seeds of many of the curious and rare plants he had collected, at moderate prices. Morison published an edition of this work at Oxford in 1674, 4to, under the title of “Icones et descriptiones rariarum plantarum Sicilian, Melitae, Galliae, et Italioe.” Many of the plants, Haller says, were new. The figures are small, and in general not well delineated or engraved. His next production was “Recherches et observations naturelles,” published at Paris in 1671, 12mo, again at Amsterdam in 1674, and again in 1744, in 8vo. It consists of letters to his correspondents in France, Italy, England, &c. In 1684, in 16mo, “Opcrvazioni natural) ove si contengono materie medico fisiche e di botanica,” Bologna. The observations are twenty in number, and dedicated, or addressed to so many of the author’s friends and patrons, among whom are many perons of high rank. He is very profuse in his elogia on the medical virtue of many of the plants, which he praises far beyond their real value. “Tenere oportet,” Haller says, “creduium esse virum et in viribus medicis plantarum liberalem.” “Musæo di fisica e cli esperienze decorate di opervazioni naturali,” Venet. 1697, 4to. The author here assumes the name of Sylvlo. The observations are, as in the former work, dedicated to his noble patrons, and contain ample accounts of the medical virtues of various plants, much beyond what, from experience, they have been found to possess. Some smaller dissertations were printed in Miscel. Naturae Curias, and in the Journal des Savans. On the whole, Boccone appears to have been an industrious and intelligent writer, possessing considerable originality, and deserves to be classed among botanists of the third rate.

, or Bochius, a Latin poet, was born at Brussels July 27, 1555, and became so eminent for his poetry, as to be called the Belgic Virgil. Having attached himself to cardinal Radzevil, he studied theology for some time, under the tuition of Bellarmin, afterwards the celebrated cardinal. He then travelled in Italy, Poland, Livonia, Russia, and other countries. The only memorable event that his biographers have recorded of these travels, is, that in his way to Moscow his feet were frozen, and he was thinking of submitting to amputation, when the place where he stopped happening to be surprized by the enemy, he recovered his feet in a most surprising manner, and escaped the danger of losing either them or his liberty. On his return home, he devoted his time to his literary pursuits, especially poetry, and died Jan. 13, 1609. He has left the following pieces 1. “De Belgii principatu.” 2. “Parodia heroica Psahnorum Davidicorum.” 3. “Observationes physicae, ethicae, politics, et historical, in Psalmos.” 4. “Vita Davidis.” 5. “Orationes.” 6. “Poe'mata, &.C.” these poetical pieces, consisting of epigrams, elegies, &c. were collected and printed at Cologne, in 1615, with the addition of some poems by his son, a promising youth, who died in Calabria. It must not be omitted that Booh wrote the verses under the cuts of Verstegan’s absurd book against queen Elizabeth, entitled “Theatrum crudelitatum Hereticorum nostri temporis,” a sort of popish martyrology.

, a learned French Protestant, born at Roan in Normandy, 1599. His father was a Protestant clergyman, and his mother a sister of the celebrated Peter du Moulin. He made a very early progress in learning, particularly in the Greek language, of which we have a proof in the verses he composed at the age of fourteen, in praise of Thomas Dempster, under whom he studied at Paris, and who has prefixed them to his Roman Antiquities. He went through a course of philosophy at Sedan, and studied divinity at Saumur, under Cameronius, whom he followed to London, the academy at Sauinur being dispersed during the civil war. He went also to Oxford, and in Lent term, 1622, was entered as a student at the library, where he laid in a considerable part of that stock of Oriental learning which he afterwards displayed in his works. He afterwards went over to Leyden, and studied Arabic under Erpenius. When returned to France, he was chosen minister of Caen, where, in 1630, he distinguished himself by public disputations with father Veron, a very famous polemic, and champion for the Roman catholic religion, published under the title of “Acte de la conference entre S. B. et Jean Baillebache, &c. d'un part: et Francois Veron, predicateur de controverses,” Saumur, 2 vols. 8vo. The dispute was held in the castle of Caen, in presence of a great number of Catholics and Protestants. Bochart came off with honour and reputation, which was not a little increased upon the publication of his Phaieg and Canaan, which are the titles of the two parts of his “Geographica Sacra,” 1646. While at Caen, he was tutor to Wentworth Dillon, earl of Roscommon, author of the “Essay on Translated verse.” He acquired also great fame by his tl Hierozoicon, printed at London, 1675. The great learning displayed in these works rendered him esteemed, not only amongst those of his own persuasion, but amongst all lovers of knowledge of whatever denomination, especially such as studied the scriptures in their original languages, which was then very common. Dr. Haiceweli, who was contemporary with Bochart, speaking of the knowledge of the oriental languages, observes, that “this last century (the fifteenth) afforded more skilful men that way than the other fourteen since Christ” In 1652, the queen of Sweden invited him to Stockholm, where she gave him many proofs of her regard and esteem. At his return into France, in 1653, he continued his ordinary exercises, and was one of the members of the academy of Caen, which consisted of all the learned men of that place. He died suddenly, when he was speaking in this academy, May 6, 1667, which gave M. Brieux occasion to make the following epitaph on him:

Besides what we have mentioned, he wrote a treatise on the terrestrial paradise, on the plants and precious stones mentioned in scripture, and some other pieces, but he left these unfinished. He left also a great number of sermons. As many of his dissertations as could be collected were published in the edition of his works printed in Holland, 1712, 3 vols. folio. The “Hierozoicon, seu Historia animalium S. Scriptime/' was reprinted at Leipsic, by Rosenmuller, with notes and additions, 1793—6, 3 vols. 4to. Bochart, in oriental literature was one of the first men of his time but, like many who have studied the Hebrew with great zeal, he fell into a sort of theory, which made him in many cases more attentive to words than things. His Sacred Geography is a stupendous undertaking, but it was impossible he could bring it to perfection at a time when we knew comparatively very little of modern Asia, and had few good books of travels. He is also accused, and not unjustly, of indulging too freely in etymologies of proper names, taken from the Hebrew, and of changing geographical questions, which are entirely of an historical nature, into etymological ones. These, and some other defects in Bochart’s writings, have occasioned some persons to look on him with contempt, and distrust the whole of his learned work; whereas, he has treated many questions with profound sagacity, and even his errors are instructive. The only thing wanting to render his work extensively useful, and to throw all the light upon the foreign geography of the Hebrews which the nature of the subject can admit of was a proper supplement, which, should fill up his omissions, and correct his mistakes and tliis was undertaken by the celebrated Michaelis, from whom we have abridged the above sentiments on the merits of Bochart, and who, in 1769, published the first part of what he modestly termed a gleaning after Bochart,” Spicilegium Geographiae Hebraeorum exterae post Bochartum," completed in eleven parts, Gottingeu, 1780, 4to.

, a liberal patron of learning, and first president of the parliament of Paris, was born in that metropolis, Jan. L6, 1730, of a family, the branches of which had filled many distinguished offices in the magistracy, and to which the subject of the preceding article appears to have been related. From his infancy, Mons. Saron was attached to mathematical studies, and particularly to calculations, the most complicated of which he performed with astonishing facility and many eminent astronomers, who were his friends, made no scruple to apply to him for assistance of this kind, which he contributed with the greatest politeness and as very much depends on intricate calculations, he may justly be allowed to share with them in the honour of their discoveries. He was, however, among the first who discovered that Herschell’s new star was a new planet, and not a comet, as most of the French astronomers thought. In 1779 he was elected into the academy of sciences, and contributed to the promotion of their labours, not only by his private studies, which were indeed rather those of an amateur than of a scholar by profession, but also by his fortune. He made, at a vast expence, a collection of the finest astronomical instruments of all kinds, which he very willingly lent to those who wished to make use of them, and never had more pleasure than when he fancied he was thus supplying the wants of men of genius. It was also by his liberality that Laplace was enabled to publish his “Theorie du mouvernent elliptujue et de la figure de terre,” 1784, 4to, the expence of which he defrayed. His whole life, indeed, exhibited a perfect model of a patron of learning and Learned men, and demonstrated how easily men of rank and fortune may exalt their characters by the encouragement of genius. Yet this man was doomed to destruction by the monsterswho ruled in France during the revolutionary period, and who ordered him, and some other members of the old parliament of Paris, to be guillotined, a sentence which was executed April 20, 1794. M. Monjoie published in 1800 “L'eloge de Saron,” 8vo, and Cassini paid him a similar compliment, which, however, was not printed.

, called also Langhen-Jan, a painter of history and portrait of the Flemish school, was born at Munster, about the year 1610; and removing to Flanders, acquired the art of design and colouring in the school of Jacques Jordaens. He designed well the heads erf his women are generally graceful, and those of his men distinguished by character: his tone of colouring sometimes resembled that of Rubens, but more frequently that of Vandyck. His pictures have great force and harmony, and his skilful management of the chiaro-scuro produces an agreeable effect. An altar-piece at the church of St. James in Ghent, representing the martyrdom of this saint, and a picture of the Annunciation in another church, painted in 1664, are distinguished performances of this master. Descamps mentions another John Van Bockhorst, who was born at Dentekoom in 1661, went when young to London, and was employed by sir Godfrey Kneller on his portraits, and the earl of Pembroke also employed him to paint portraits, history, and battle pieces. He afterwards practised portrait-painting in various parts of Germany, principally at the court of Brandeuburgh and in Cleves, and died in 1724.

, a French ecclesiastic, was born at Avallon, April 1, 1649, of poor parents, who, however, neglected nothing that could contribute to his having the means of acquiring a fortune by a good education. He first studied at Dijon, and then went through a course of philosophy at Auxerre. On his return home, he determined on a military life, and went to Paris in hopes of being admitted into the royal guards. Not succeeding, he began to study with a view to the church, but again altered his mind, and accompanied M. de Nointel, the French ambassador, to Constantinople. On his return at the end of two years, he went to Bourges to study law, and having finished his course, he practised for some time at Avallon with considerable success. Here, however, he gave himself up to a dissipated life, which ended in a state of melancholy, during which he wrote to his brother, an ecclesiastic, who advised him to retire for some months to a monastery of Carthusians, and meditate. on his past conduct. Bocquillot complied, recovered his peace of mind, and resumed his ecclesiastical studies. Having received the order of priesthood, he became curate of Chateiux, but was obliged some time after to resign it, owing to his deafness. Being then provided with a canonry at Avallon, he passed the remainder of his days in the tranquil employment of his pen, composing a great many homilies and books of practical piety, which he presented gratis to the booksellers, on condition that he should fix such prices on them as might suit the pockets of the poor. One of his best works is his “Traits historique de la Liturgie sacrée ou de la Messe,” “Paris, 1701, 8vo. He wrote also a life of the chevalier Bayard, under his fictitious name, the Prieur de Louval, taken principally from Godefroi’s life of Bayard, published in 1616, and an antiquary tract, entitled” Dissertation surles Tombeaux de Quarrée, village de Bourgoyne," Lyons, 1724, 8vo. He died of an apoplexy Sept. 22, 1728. His life and letters were published in 1745, 12mo.

, a learned professor of the university of Helmstadt, was born in 1722, at Wernigerode. After having been educated at home, with great care, by his father, who was judge of that city, and counsellor to the count Stolberg of Wernigerode, he went in 1739 to the school of Closter-Bergen, near Magdeburgh, then superintended by Steinmez, and in 1741, took his leave of this school, in a Latin oration, “De societatibus hujus sevi notabilioribus.” He then went to Halle, and having early imbibed a taste for oriental languages and sacred philology, he attached himself particularly to the two Michaelis’s, father and son, who were then professors in that university. From Halle, he went to Leipsic, where he studied Arabic, Syriac, Chaldaic, Samaritan, Ethiopian, and rabbinical Hebrew. On his return to Halle in 1747, he maintained a thesis for his doctor’s degree, under the presidency of Michaelis the father, “On the antiquity of the Hebrew language” and then opened a course of lectures which were much admired. Notwithstanding this success, however, he left Halle, after a residence of two years, and settled at Helmstadt. Here he became a most popular teacher, his lectures being attended by an unusual number of students; and in 1754, the uniYersity secured his services by appointing him professor extraordinary of oriental languages. About this time, happening to meet with some works in which the study of the Armenian, Coptic, and Turkish languages was recommended, he had a great desire to add these to his stock, and not having been able to obtain the assistance of Jablonski for the Coptic, he determined to learn the others without a master. Having begun this task at his lisure hours, in 1756, he made such rapid progress as to be able to publish, before the conclusion of the year, the first two chapters of St. Matthew translated from the Turkish into Latin, with a critical preface on the history and utility of the Turkish language and the first four chapters of the same evangelist translated from the Armenian into Latin, with some considerations on the Armenian language. These two little works, which were published, the first at Bremen, and the other at Halle, were criticised with some severity, perhaps not unjust; but the zeal and industry of the author, although not altogether successful in these attempts, were still the subject of admiration, and were not unrewarded. In 1760 he obtained a pension and in 1763, lest he should accept of the offer of a professorship made to him by the university of Giessen, that of Helmstadt conferred on him the title of professor in ordinary of philosophy, with an augmentation of salary. His various works in the mean time amply confirmed their choice, and extended his reputation throughout Europe. Of his private life we have no further account, although it was prolonged for many years after this period, as he died of an apoplexy, March 7, 1796. His principal works are, 1. “Evangelium secundum Matthaeum ex versione Æthiopici interpretis in Bibliis polyglottis Anglicanis editum cum Graeco, c.” Halle, 1748, 4to, with a preface by Michaelis on the Ethiopian translation of the New Testament. 2. “Evangelium secundum Matthaeum ex versione Persica, &c.” Helmstadt, 17.50, 4to. 3. Persian translations of Mark, Luke, and John, 1751, 4to. published separately. 4. “Evangelium secundum Marcum ex versione Arabica, &c.” Lerngow, 1752, 4to. 5. “Novum Testamentum ex versione jEthiopica, &c. in Latinum,” Brunswick, 1753 55, 2 vols. 4to. 6. “Fragmenta Veteris Test, ex versione Æthiopici interpretis, et alia quaedam opuscula Æthiopica,” Wolfenb. 1755, 4to. 7. “Pseudo-critica Millio-Bengeliana,” Halle, 1767, 8vo, pointing out some inaccuracies in the variorum editions of the New Testament by these eminent critics. Bode is considered by his countrymen as a man of most extensive learning, but as destitute of elegance as a writer, either in Latin or German, and as unacquainted with the art of enlivening his subject.

, a French lawyer, and political writer, was born at Angers about 1530. In his youth he was supposed, but not upon good foundation, to have been a monk. He studied first at Toulouse, and after taking his degrees, read lectures there with much applause, having a design to settle there as law- pro lessor, and with that view he pronounced an oration on public instruction in the schools but finding Toulouse not a sufficiently ample stage for his ambition, he removed to Pans, and began to practise at the bar, where his expectations being likewise disappointed, he determined to apply himself to literary occupations, and in this he had very considerable success. Henry III. who liked to have men of letters about him, admitted him into familiar conversation, and had such an opinion of him, that he sent to prison one John, or Michael de la Serre, who had written against Bodin, and forbid him under pain of death to publish his work but this courtly favour did not last. Thuanus ascribes the king’s withdrawing his countenance to the envy of the courtiers but others think it was occasioned by Bodin' s taking a political part in opposition to the king. He found an asylum, however, with the duke of Alene,on, who made him secretary of his commands, one of the masters of the requests of his palace, and grand master of his waters and forests. The insurgents in the Netherlands at this time intended to declare the duke their sovereign, and were said to be prompted to this by queen Elizabeth of England. Bodin, however, accompanied him into England and Flanders, but he had the misfortune to lose this patron in 1584.

In 1576 he was chosen deputy to the states-general of Blois, by the tiers-etat of Vermandois, and ably contended for the rights of the people, and particularly opposed those who would have all the king’s subjects constrained to profess the Catholic religion, which we can easily suppose effectually prevented the king from being reconciled to him. He after this appears to have resided at Laon, where, in 1589, he persuaded that city to declare for the league, and at the same time wrote to the president Brisson, a letter severely reflecting on Henry III. but this fault he afterwards repaired by securing the allegiance of Laon to Henry IV. He died of the plague at Laon, in 1596, leaving a character more dubious than that of any man in his time, and the light thrown upon it in his works is certainly not of the most favourable kind. It may be said, that although toleration was a word not known in his time, he appears to have cherished some liberal notions on the subject, but, as to religious principles, he had so little steadiness, that he was by turns accounted, perhaps not always justly, a Protestant, Papist, Deist, Sorcerer, Jew, and Atheist; D'Aguessau, however, pronounces him a worthy magistrate, a learned author, and a good citizen. His first work was a commentary on Oppian’s “Cynogeticon,” Paris, 1549, 4to, in which he is supposed to have availed himself rather too freely of the notes of Turnebus. He then published an introduction to the study of history, under the title “Methodus ad facilem Historiarum cognitionem,” Paris, 1566, 4to, the principal fault of which is that it does not correspond with the title, being very desultory and immethodical. But that which procured him most reputation, was his six books on “The Republic,” a work equally immethodical with the other, and abounding in digressions and irrelevant matter, yet, for the time, an extraordinary collection of facts and reflections on political government. It was soon translated into other languages, and was read with much interest in an age when the principles of government were seldom discussed in books. When in England with the duke of Alenc,on, we are told that he found the English had made a Latin translation of it, bad enough, but, bad as it was, the subject of lectures at London and Cambridge. Bodin reports thus far himself; but that “it became a classic at Cambridge” has been supplied by his biographers, who were probably not aware that lectures on political government were then no part of Cambridge education, and if his book was explained and commented on there or at London, it must have been by individuals. In this work he introduces the influence of climate on the principles of government; and as Montesquieu has done the same, La Harpe, the French critic, terms Bodin’s book the “germ of the Spirit of Laws,” but this notion is far more ancient than either, and not indeed of much consequence, whether old or new. The first edition of these “Livres de la Republique” was printed at Paris, 1577, fol. and was followed by three' others, 1577, 1578, and 1580 but the edition of Lyons, 1593, and that of Geneva, 1600, are preferred, because they contain Bodin’s Treatise on Coins. He afterwards translated it into Latin, Paris, 1586, fol. an edition often reprinted, and more complete than the French, and several abridgements were published of it, both in Latin and French. His tables of law, entitled “Juris Universi Distributio,” were printed in 1578, and in the following year, his “”Demonomanie des Sorciers,“to which was annexed” A refutation of the book, de Lamiis,“of John Wier, physician to the duke of Cleves, who had undertaken to prove that the stories of witchcraft and sorcery have chiefly arisen from imposture or delusions of fancy. The literary character of Bodin, who defended this kind of superstition, incurred reproach, and he himself was suspected of being a magician. A work written by him, but never printed, and entitled” Heptaplomeron, sive de abditis rerum sublimium arcanis,“is said to have been an attack upon religion, and designed to invalidate the authority of revelation. By the seeming advantages which he gave in this work to the Jewish religion, he was suspected of being a convert to it; but it is more probable that he was a sceptic with regard to religion, and alike indifferent to all modes of faith. A little while before his death he published a Latin treatise, entitled” Theatrum Universae Naturae," in which he professes to pursue the causes and effects of things to their principles.

Upon the accession of queen Elizabeth in 1558, he returned into England with his father 'and family, who settled at London and soon after, he was sent to Magdalen college, in Oxford, under the tuition of Dr. Humphrey, afterwards president of that society. In 1563he took the degree of B. A. and the same year was chosen probationer of Merton college, and the year following admitted fellow. In 1565, by persuasion of some of the fellows, he undertook the public reading of a Greek lecture in the hall of that college, which he continued for some time without expecting or requiring any stipend but afterwards the society of their own accord allowed him a salary of four marks per annum and from that time continued the lecture to the college. In 1566 he took the degree of M. A. and the same year read natural philosophy in the public schools. In 1569 he was elected one of the proctors of the university and after that, for a considerable time, supplied the place of university orator. Hitherto Mr. Bodley applied himself to the study of various faculties, without the inclination to profess any one more than the rest; but, in 1576, being desirous to improve himself in the modern languages, and to qualify himself for public business, he began his travels, and spent nearly four years in visiting France, Germany, and Italy. Afterwards, returning to his college, he applied himself to the study of history and politics. In 1583 he was made gentleman usher to queen Elizabeth; and in 1585, married Anne, daughter of Mr. Carew, of Bristol, and widow of Mr. Ball, a lady of considerable fortune. Soon after, he was employed by queen Elizabeth in several embassies to Frederick king of Denmark, Julius duke of Brunswick, William landgrave of Hesse, and other German princes, to erfgage them to join their forces with those of the English, for the assistance of the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. of France and having discharged that commission, he was sent to king Henry III. at the time when that prince was forced by the duke of Guise to quit Paris. This commission, he tells us, he performed with extraordinary secrecy, not being accompanied by any one servant, (for so he was commanded), nor with any other letters than such as were written with the queen’s own hand to the king, and some select persons about him. “The effect,” he adds, “of that message it is fit I should conceal; but it tended greatly to the advantage of all the Protestants in France, and to the duke’s apparent overthrow, which also followed soon upon it.” Camden says nothing more of this embassy than that queen Elizabeth “not only assisted the king of Navarre, when he was entangled in a dangerous and difficult war, with money and other military provisions, but sent over sir Thomas Bodley to support or encourage the French king when his affairs seemed to be in a very desperate condition.”

After near five years residence in Holland, he obtained leave to return to England to look after his private affairs, but was shortly after remanded back to the Hague. About a year after he came into England again, to communicate some private discoveries to the queen and presently returned to the States for the execution of those councils he had secretly proposed. At length, having succeeded in all his negociations, he obtained his final recal in 1597. After his return, finding his advancement at court obstructed by the jealousies and intrigues of the great men, he retired from the court and all public business, and never could be prevailed with to return and accept of any new employment. His own account of his treatment at this time is too amusing and characteristic to be omitted “I cannot chuse,” says he, “in making report of the principal accidents that have befallen unto me in the course of my life, but record among the rest, that from the very first day 1 had no man more to triend, among the lords of the council, than was the lord treasurer Burleigh for when occasion had been ottered of declaring his conceit, as touching my service, he would always tell the queen (which I received from herself, and some other ear-witnesses) that there was not any man in England so meet as myself to undergo the office of the secretary; and since, his son the present lord treasurer hath signified unto me in private conference, that, when his father first intended to advance him to that place, his purpose was withal to make me his colleague. But the case stood thus in my behalf: Before such time as I returned from the Provinces United, which was in the year 1597, and likewise after my return, the earl of Essex did use me so kindly, both by letters and messages, and other great tokens of his inward favour to me, that, alihough I had no meaning but to settle in my mind my chiefest dependance upon the lord Burleigh, as one that I reputed to be both the best able, and therewithal the most willing, to work my advancement with the queen; yet I know not how the earl, who sought by all devices to divert her love and liking both from the father and the son (but from the son in special), to withdraw my affection from the one and the other, and to win me altogether to depend upon himself, did so often take occasion to entertain the queen with some prodigal speephes of my sufficiency for a secretary, which were ever accompanied with words of disgrace against the present lord treasurer, as neither she herself (of whose favour before I was thoroughly assured) took any great pleasure to prefer me the sooner (for she hated his ambition, and would give little countenance to any of his followers); and both the lord Burleigh and his son waxed jealous of my courses, as if underhand 1 had been induced, by the cunning and kindness of the earl of Essex, to oppose myself against their dealings. And though in very truth they had no solid ground at all of the least alteration in my disposition towards either of them both (for I did greatly respect their persons and places, with a settled resolution to do them any service, as also in my heart I detested to be of any faction whatsoever) yet the now lord treasurer, upon occasion of some talk that I have since had with him of the earl and his actions, hath freely confessed of his own accord to me, that his daily provocations were so bitter and sharp against him, and his comparisons so odious, when he put us in a balance, as he thought thereupon, he had very great reason to use his best means to put any man out of love of raising his fortune, whom the earl with sucn violence, to his extreme prejudice, had endeavoured to dignify. And this, as he affirmed, was all the motive -he had to set himself against me, in whatsoever might redound to the bettering of my state, or increasing my credit and countenance with the queen. When I” had thoroughly now bethought me, first in the earl, of the slender holdfast he had in the queen; of an endless opposition of the chiefest of our statesmen like still to wait upon him; of his perilous, feeble, and uncertain advice, as well in his own, as in all the causes of his friends; and when moreover for myself I had fully considered how very untowardly these two counsellors were affected unto me, (upon whom before in cogitation I had framed all the fabric of my future prosperity); how ill it did concur with my natural disposition, to become, or to be counted a stickler or partaker in any public faction how well I was able, by God’s good blessing, to live of myself, if I could be content with a competent livelihood; how short a time of farther life I was then to expect by the common course of nature when I had, I say, in this manner represented to my thoughts my particular estate, together with the earl’s, I resolved thereupon to possess my soul in peace all the residue of my days; to take my full farewell of state employments; to satisfy my mind with that mediocrity of worldly living that I had of mine own and so to retire me from the court, which was the epilogue and end of all my actions, and endeavours of any important note, till I came to the age of sixty three. Now although after this, by her majesty’s directions, I was often called to the court by the now lord treasurer, then secretary, and required by him, as also divers times since, by order from the king, to serve as an ambassador in France, to go a commissioner from his highness for concluding the truce between Spain and the Provinces, and to negotiate in other very honourable employments yet I would not be removed from my former final resolution insomuch as at length to reduce me the sooner to return to the court, I had an offer made me by the present lord treasurer (for in process of time he saw, as he himself was pleased to tell me more than once, that all my dealing was upright, fair, and direct) that in case I myself were willing unto it, he would make me his associate in the secretary’s office And to the intent I might believe that he intended it bonafide, he would get me out of hand to be sworn of the council. And for the better enabling of my state to maintain such a dignity, whatsoever 1 would ask that might be fit for him to deal in, and for me to enjoy, he woul'd presently solic.t the king to give it passage. All which persuasions notwithstanding, albeit I was often assaulted by him, in regard of my years, and for that I felt myself subject to many indispositions, besides some other reasons, which I reserve unto myself, I have continued still at home my retired course of life, which is now methinks to me as the greatest preferment that the state can afford.“Mr. Camden mentions the affair of sir Thomas’s disappointment in regard to the office of secretary in these words” It raised in him (the earl of Essex) a greater and more apparent discontent, that sir Robert Cecil was chosen secretary in his absence whereas he had some time before recommended sir Thomas Bodley, on the score of his great wisdom and experience in the affairs of the Low Countries, and had run very high in his commendations; but with so much bitterness, and so little reason, disparaged Cecil, that the queen (who had by this time a mean opinion of Essex’s recommendations) was the more inclinable to refuse to make Bodley secretary; neither would she let the lord treasurer join him in commission with his son; both which honours were designed him, till Essex, by too profuse and lavish praises, had rendered him suspected as a creature of his own."

In the same year (1597) he began the munificent work of restoring, or rather founding anew, the public library at Oxford, which was completed in 1599. In his memoirs he has admirably displayed his first thoughts, his first feelings, and his first precautions on this important undertaking. After adverting to the motives which induced him to retire from court and chuse a private life, he goes on thus “Only this I must truly confess of myself, that though I did never yet repent me of those, and some other my often refusals of honourable offers, in respect of emiching my private estate yet somewhat more of late I have blamed myself and my nicety that way, for the love that I bear to my reverend mother the university of Oxon, and to the advancement of her good, by such kind of means, as I have since undertaken. For thus I fell to discourse and debate in my mind tiiat although I might find it fittest for me to keep out of the throng of court contentions, and address my thoughts and deeds to such ends altogether, as I myself could best affect yet withal I was to think, that my duty towards God, the expectation of the world, and my natural inclination, and very morality did require, that I should not wholly so hide those little abilities that 1 had, but that in some measure, in one kind or other, I should do the true part of a profitable member of the state. Whereupon examining exactly for the rest of my life what course I might take, and having sought (as I thought) all the ways to the wood, to select the most proper, I concluded at the last to set up my staff at the library door in Oxon, being thoroughly persuaded, that in my solitude and surcease from the commonwealth affairs, 1 could not busy myself to better purpose, than by reducing that place (which then in every part lay ruined and waste) to the public use of students. For the effecting whereof I found myself furnished, in a competent proportion, of such four kinds of aids, as, unless I had them all, there was no hope of good success. For without some kind of knowledge, as well in the learned and modern tongues, as in sundry other sorts of scholastical literature without some purse-ability to go through with the charge without great store of honourable friends, to further the design and without special good leisure to follow such a work, it could but have proved a vain attempt and inconsiderate. But how well I have sped in all my endeavours, and how full provision I have made for the benefit and ease of all frequenters of the library, that which I have already performed in sight, that which besides I have given for the maintenance of it, and that which hereafter I purpose to add, by way of enlargement of that place (for the project is cast, an. I, whether I live or die, it shall be, God willing, put in full execution), will testify so truly and abundantly for me, as I need not be the publisher of the dignity and worth of my own institution.” Camden, under the year 1598, tells us, that Bodley, being at present unengaged from affairs of state, set himself a task, which would have suited the character of a crowned head, the promotion and encouragement of learning for he began to repair the public library at Oxford, and furnished it with new books. It was set up, he adds, by Humphrey duke of Gloucester, but through the iniquity of the times was, in the reign of Edward VI. stripped of all the books but he (Bodley) having made the choicest collection from all parts of the world of the most valuable books, partly at his own cost, and partly by contributions from others, he first stocked, and afterwards left it so well endowed at his death, that his memory deserves to bear a very lasting date amongst men of worth and letters.“The same author, in his” Britannia,“tells us, duke Humphrey’s library consisted of one hundred and twentynine volumes, procured from Italy at a great expence. His translator adds, that they were valued at above a thousand pounds, and that the duke in 1440 gave one hundred and twenty-six volumes more, and in 1443 a much greater number, besides considerable additions at his death three years after. But, before duke Humphrey’s time, Richard de Bury, alias Aungervil, bishop of Durham, in 1295, gave a great number of books to the university, which were kept in a place for that purpose in the college, now Trinity college, which the monks of Durham had founded in the north suburbs of Oxford; an account whereof may be gathered from a book written by himself, called” Philobiblos, sive de amore librorum, et institutione Bibliothecae.“And after him, in 1320, Thomas Cobham, bishop of Worcester, built another over the old Congregation-house in the north coemetery of St. Mary’s. In 1597, sir Thomas Bodley, taking into his consideration the ruinous condition of duke Humphrey’s library, and resolving to undertake the restoration of it at his own expence, wrote a letter, dated at London, Jan. 23, to Dr. Ravis, dean of Christ church, then vice-chancellor, to be communicated to the university; offering therein to restore the fabric of the said library, and to settle an annual income for the purchase of books, and the support of such officers as might be necessary to take care of it. This letter was received with the greatest satisfaction by the university, and an answer returned, testifying their most grateful acknowledgment and acceptance of his noble offer. On this, sir Thomas immediately set about the work, and in two years time brought it to a good degree of perfection. In 1601, the university had such a sense of his services that he was voted a public benefactor, and his name ordered to be included among the other benefactors repeated in the public prayers. He furnished it with a large collection of books, purchased in foreign countries at a great expence and thi.-, collection in a short time became so greatly enlarged by the generous benefactions of several noblemen, bishops, and others, that neither the shelves nor the room could contain them. &ir Thomas then offering to make a considerable addition to the building, the motion was readily embraced, and, on July 19, 1610, the first stone of the new foundation was laid with great solemnity, the vice-chancellor, Doctors, masters of arts, &c. attending in their proper habits, a speech being made upon the occasion. But sir Thomas Bodley did not live to see this part of his design completed, though he left sufficient means in trust, as he bestowed his. whole estate (his debts, legacies, and funeral charges defrayed) to the noble purposes of this foundation. By this, and the help of other benefactions, in procuring which sir Thomas was very serviceable by his great interest with many eminent persons, the university was enabled to add three other sides to what was already built, forming a noble quadrangle, and spacious rooms for schools of arts. By sir Thomas’s’ will 200l. per annum was settled on the library for ever out of whichhe appointed near forty pounds for the head librarian, ten pounds for the sub-librarian, and eight for the junior. He drew up likewise a body of excellent statutes for the government of the library. In this library is a statue erected to the memory of sir Thomas Bodley, by the earl of Dorset, chancellor of the university, with the following inscription:” Thomas Sackvillus Dorsettia? Comes, Summus Angliae Thesaurarius, et hujus Academise Cancellarius, Thomse Bodleio Equiti Aurato, qui Bibliothecam hanc instituit, honoris causa pie posuit i. e. Thi.mas Sackvile, earl of Dorset, lord high treasurer of England, and chancellor of this university, piously erected this monument to the honour of sir Thomas Bodley, knt. who founded this library.“King James I. we are told, when he came to Oxford in 1605, and, among other edifices, took a view of this famous library, at his departure, in imitation of Alexander, broke out into this speech” If I were not a king, I would be an university man and if it were so that I must be a prisoner, if I might have my wish, 1 would have no other prison than that library, and be chained together with so many good authors." A catalogue of the printed books in the Bodleian library was published in 1674 by Dr. Thomas Hyde, then chief librarian another of the manuscripts was printed in 1697; and a more ample catalogue of the books was printed at Oxford, in 1738, in two volumes, folio.

Dr. John Morris, canon of Christ- church, bequeathed by his will to the university five pounds per annum, for a speech to be made by a master of arts in praise of sir Thomas Bodley; the person who made the speech to be nominated by the dean of Christ-church, and confirmed by the vice-chancelor for the time being. But this gift was not to take place till the death of Dr. Morris’s widow; which happening in November, 1681, the annuity then fell to the university, and the year following, Dr. John Fell, dean of Christ-church, nominated Thomas Sparke, A. M. of his college who, being approved by the vicechancellor, made a solemn speech in the schools, the 8th of November, 1682. This is continued annually on the day when the visitation of the library is made. His statutes for the regulation of the library were translated out of English into Latin by Dr. John Budden, principal of Broadgate-hall (now Pembroke college), and incorporated with the university statutes. Sir Thomas wrote his own life to the year 1609, which, together with the first draught of his statutes, and a collection of his letters, were published from the originals in the Bodleian library, by Hearne, under the title of “Reliquiae Bodleianse, or, some genuine remains of sir Thomas Bodley,” London, 1703, 8vo. Of this we have availed ourselves in the preceding account, to which something must now be added from subsequent information. It is not easy to quit the history of a man to whom literature is so exceedingly indebted, and who cannot be contemplated without veneration, not only by the sons of Oxford, but by every one who has profited by access to the invaluable library which will hand his 'name down to the latest posterity.

Among the other aids which sir Thomas Bodley received, in his noble design of restoring the public library at Oxford, his great friend, the earl of Essex, made him a present of a considerable part of the very valuable library that had belonged to the celebrated Jerom Osorius, successively bishop of Sylvas, and of Algarva, in which last see he died in 1580. This library had fallen to the earl’s share, among the booty which had been taken in the famous expedition against Cadiz, in 1596. King James I. likewise, enriched the Bodleian library at Oxford at the expence of his own for he gave a warrant to sir Thomas Bodley, under the privy seal, for any books, which that gentleman should like in any of his houses or libraries. However, his majesty amply supplied this loss, by purchasing lord Lumley’s library, which contained not only his own collection, but that of his father-in-law, Henry Fitz-Alan, earl of Arundel, who had lived in the reign of king Henry the eighth, when, upon the dissolution of the monasteries, he had great opportunities of collecting manuscripts. Many of these manuscripts, as well as of the printed books in the Royal library, have the name of Arundel and Lumley written in them and now constitute a part of the noble collection in the British Museum. In Hearne’s “Johannis Glastoniensis Historia de Rebus Glastoniensibus,” are two letters to sir Robert Cotton, which peculiarly belong to this article, as one of them gave rise to a very ridiculous report. They will be found in the note .

Though sir Thomas Bodley’s design, in re-founding the public library at Oxford, was so excellent and useful, and his bequeathing his estate for that purpose so commendable, some persons were dissatisfied at their not being remembered by him in his last will. This, at least, was the case with Mr. Chamberlayne, who, though not a relation of sir Thomas’s, yet having had a long acquaintance with him, complains of his conduct with no small degree of malignity. He says that sir Thomas Bodley was so carried away with the vanity and vain glory of his library, that he forgot all other respects and duties almost of conscience, friendship, or good nature. Mr. Chamberlayne farther observes, as another argument of sir Thomas’s vanity, that he had written his own life in seven sheets of paper, not leaving out the least minuteness, or omitting any thing that might tend to his own glory or commendation and that he had not so much as made mention of his wife, or that he was married by which it might be seen what a mind he carried, and what account he made of his best benefactors. It is easy to perceive, that these reflections are chiefly the result of spleen and disappointment.

In 1737 he was elected a member of the grand council of Zurich, but this excited no ambition. Having lost his children, he refused every kind of civil promotion, and took as much pains to avoid as others do to procure such honours. His object was to reform the taste of his country, and with this view, for many years all his writings were of the didactic and critical kind. In 1721 he and Breitinger made their first appearance in the republic of letters, by a periodical paper, in the manner of the English Spectator, to which they gave the title of the “Painter of Manners,” and which contributed in a very great degree to the reformation of style. This was followed by many other works, which procured Bodmer the high character of the restorer of the German language, criticism, and poetry. He published also various pieces relative to the history of Swisserland, the greater part of which appeared in the Helvetic Bibliotheque, and have since been inserted in the supplement of Lauffer’s history of Swisserland. In 1748 and 1758, he and his former colleague Breitinger re-published many pieces of German poetry of the thirteenth century: Bodmer also translated some old English ballads, and published the poetry of Opitz with critical remarks. All these contributed essentially to the refinement of German taste and style but Bodmer reached his fiftieth year before he became himself a poet. He had hitherto been terrified at the restraint which rhime imposes, and made no attempt of the kind, until Klopstock, by introducing hexameters, opened the way to ease and variety. Bodmer had studied Milton and Klopstock, and as he was the son of a clergyman, and once destined for the church, this, and a desire to tread in the steps of these illustrious predecessors, determined him to choose a subject from the Bible. Perhaps, says his biographer, his creative powers suggested to him the patriarchs instead of the Achilleses and Æncases. Hitherto his pen had not touched on a national subject, nor could he find any creative fund in national history. Animated therefore by the genius of Milton, he ventured to write an epic in an age in which the poetic fire appeared to be extinguished. His hero was Noah, who having survived the destruction of the first, became the father of a new race of men. Bodmer, by charging this new generation with the crimes of all ages, rendered his poem at once moral and political, and, under the title of the “Noachide,” it was printed at Zurich, 1752, 1765, and 1772.

, minister of the German chapel at St. James’s, London, the son of Anthony Boehm, minister at Oeetorff, in the county of Pyrmont, in Germany, who died 1679, was born June 1, 1673, and after his father’s death was sent to school at Lemgo, and afterwards at Hameln, whence, after making proficiency in Greek and Latin, he was removed to the newly-erected university at Halle. Having finished the usual course of studies here, and taken orders, he was for some time employed as tutor to the sons of noblemen and gentlemen. About the year 1701, some German families in London requested of the university of Halle to send over a proper person as schoolmaster to their children. Boehm was invited to accept this situation, and arrived at London in November of that year, where his first object was to acquire the English language. In 1702 he opened a school in Bedfordbnry, but met with so little encouragement, although invited hither for the purpose, that he must have returned to his own country, if, in 1705, he had not been appointed by prince George of Denmark, queen Anne’s husband, to be one of his chaplains, and officiate at his chapel, which he did for some time alternately with his colleague Crusius, and gave so much satisfaction, not only to the prince, but to the queen, that after his highness’s death, in 1708, the queen ordered the same service to be continued, and gave him access to her presence, which he improved occasionally in the promotion of acts, of charity and humanity. On one occasion, particularly, by his intercession, the queen prevailed on the king of France to release many of th French Protestants condemned to the gallies for religion. When king George I. came to the crown, Mr. Boehm was confirmed in his station, which beheld to his death, May 27, 1722. He was buried in Greenwich church-yard, with a characteristic epitaph. He appears to have been a man of unfeigned and fervent piety, and remarkably zealous in promoting works of piety and charity. Dr. Watts said of him, that he feared there were but few such men then in England, British or German, Episcopal or Non -conformist. His original works are 1. “Enchiridion Precum, cum introductione de natura Orationis,” 1707, 1715, 8vo. 2. “A volume of discourses and tracts,” in English. 3. “The duty of Reformation,” 1718. 4. “The doctrine of godly sorrow,” 1720. 5. “Plain directions for reading the Holy Bible,” 1708, and 1721. 6. “Various pious tracts, in the German language. He also translared the” Pietas Hallensis,“a curious history of the rise and progress of the Orphan school at Halle, 1705 6 7, and the first” Account of the Protestant mission at Tranquebar,“1709 11, some parts of the works of bishop Hopkins, Dr. Barrow, &c. Arndt’s” True Christianity" and edited a Latin edition of the same, and editions of some other pious treatises by foreign divines. He left an unfinished history of the reformation in England from Henry VIII. to Charles II. and some other manuscripts.

, privy- counsellor of the landgrave of Hesse, and professor of mathematics and philosophy at Giessen, was born at Darmstadt, Nov. 17, 1720, and died July 6, 1790. As a philosopher, he adhered to the principles of Wolf, who had been his master, but in mathematics he followed and added to the improvement of the age, by many useful and experimental treatises. His “Magazine for engineers and artillery-men,” 1777 85, 12 vols. 8vo, procured him very considerable reputation. He also wrote, 1. “Logica, ordine scientifico in usum. auditorum conscripta,” Francfort, 1749 62 69, 8vo. 2. “Metaphysica,” Giessen, 1673, 8vo, and an improved edition, 1767, 8vo. He had a considerable hand in the “Francfort Encyclopaedia” and, along with F. K. Schleicher, wrote the “New Military Library,” Marbourg, 1789 90, 4 vols.

, or Behmen, a noted visionary, and founder of the sect of the Behmenists, was born in a village near Gorlitz, in Upper Lusatia, 1575. His education was suitable to the circumstances and views of his parents, who, designing him for a mechanic trade, took him from school as soon as he could read and write, and put him apprentice to a shoe-maker. He first began to use that occupation as a master at Gorlitz, in 1594, and getting into such business as enabled him to support a family, he entered after some time into matrimony, and had several children.

In the mean time, being naturally of a religious turn of mind, he was a constant frequenter of sermons from his youth, and took all opportunities of reading books of divinity, but, not being able to satisfy himself about the differences and controversies in religion, he grew very uneasy, till, happening one day to hear from the pulpit that speech of our Saviour, “Your heavenly Father will give the holy spirit to them that ask it” he was presently so affected, that from this moment, as he tells us, he never ceased asking, that he might know the truth. Upon this, he says, by the divine drawing and will, he was in spirit rapt into the holy sabbath, where he remained seven whole days, in the highest joy; after which, coming to himself, he laid aside all the follies of youth, and was driven by divine zeal earnestly to reprehend impudent, scandalous, and blasphemous speeches, and in all his actions forbore the least appearance of evil, continuing to earn a comfortable livelihood by diligent application to his trade. la 1600, he was a second time possessed with a divine light, and by the sight of a sudden object brought to the inward ground or centre of the hidden nature yet somewhat doubting, he went out hi to an open field, and there beheld the miraculous works of the Creator in the signatures, figures, or shapes of all created things very clearly and manifestly laid open; whereupon he was taken with exceeding joy, yet held his peace, in silence praising God. But ten years after, in 1610, through the overshadowing of the holy spirit, he was a third time touched by God, and became so enlightened, that, lest so great grace bestowed upon him should slip out of his memory ^ and he resist his God, he began to write privately for his own use (without the help of any books except the holy scripture), the truths which had been thus revealed to him. In this spirit he first published his treatise, entitled “Aurora, or the rising of the sun,” in 1612 which book was immediately carried to the magistrates of Gorlitz by George Richterus, dean of the ministers of that place, who complained of its containing many of the errors of Paracelsus and Wigelius for Boehmen had amused himself with chemistry in his youth. The magistrates suppressed the piece as much as possible, and commanded the author to write no more, observing to him, that such employment was properly the business of the clergy, and did not belong to his profession and condition.

A great number of persons have been inveigled by the visions of this fanatic; among others the famous Quirinus Kahlman in Germany, who says, that he had learned more, being alone in his study, from Boehmen, than he could have learned from all the wise men of that age together: and that we may not be in the dark as to what sort of knowledge this was, he acquaints us, that amidst an infinite number of visions it happened, that being snatched out of his study, he saw thousands of thousands of lights rising round about him. But our author is better known among ou-rselves, where he has hundreds of admirers and no wonder, since, as Dr. Henry More observes, the sect of the Quakers have borrowed a great many of their doctrines from our Teutonic philosopher of whom we shall venture to say, from a perusal of some of his writings, that he possessed the grand arcanum of mysterizing plain truths by an inextricably oenigmatical expression. He has still many disciples in England and we are sorry to add, met with a warm advocate and industrious disciple in the late pious Mr. William Law, who employed many years in preparing an edition and translation of Bcehmen’s works, and which were published after his decease in 2 vols. 4to, to which two others were afterwards added. The titles of these writings will be perhaps sufficient, without entering farther into their merits, or that of their author. 1. Aurora, or the rising of the sun, 1612. 2. Of the three principles, together with an appendix of the threefold life of man, 1619. 3. Of the threefold life of man, 1620. 4. An answer to the forty questions of the soul, propounded by Dr. Walter, &c. ibid. 5. Three books; the first, of the incarnation of Jesus Christ; the second, of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ; the third, of the tree of faith, ibid. 6. Of six parts, ibid. 7. Of the heavenly and earthly mysterium, ibid. 8. Of the last times, to P. K. ibid. 9. De signatura rerum, or the signature of all things, 1621. 10. A consolatory book of the four complexions, ibid. 11. An apology to Balthazar Tilken, in two parts, ibid. 12. A consideration upon Esaias Steefel’s book, ibid. 13. Of true repentance, 1622. 14. Of true resignation, ibid. 15. Of regeneration, ibid. 16. Of predestination and election of God; at the end of which is a treatise, entitled, 17. A short compendium of repentance, 1623. 18. The mysterium magnum upon Genesis, ibid. 19. A table of the principles, or key of his writings, to G. F. and J. H. 20. Of the supersensual life, ibid. LM. Of the two testaments of Christ, viz. baptism and the supper of the Lord, ibid. 22. A dialogue between the enlightened and unenlightened soul, ibid. 23. An apology upon the book of true repentance, directed against a pasquil of the principal minister of Gorlitz, called Gregory Rickter, ibid. 24. An epitome of the mysterium magnum, ibid. 25. A table of the divine manifestation, or an exposition of the threefold world, to J. S. V. S. and A. V. F. ibid. The following are without date. 26. Of the errors of the sects of Ezekiel Meths, to A. P. A. or an apology to Esaias Steefel. 27. Of the last judgment. 28. Certain letters to diverse persons, written at diverse times, with certain keys for some hidden words. Besides these our author left unfinished, 29. A little book of divine contemplation. 30. A book of one hundred and seventy-seven theosophic questions. 3 1 The holy weeks, or the prayerbook.

, an eminent professor of botany and anatomy in the university of Wittetnberg, who was born in 1723, and died in 1803, was the disciple of Ludwig, and the author of a great many treatises on every branch of botanical science, much admired for original thoughts, perspicuity of method, and extensive knowledge. The principal of these were, 1. “Flora Lipsiae indigena,” Leipsic, 1750, 8vo. 2. “Definitiones plantarum Ludwigianas auctas et emendatas edidit G. R. Boehmer,” ibid. 1760, which forms a new and improved edition of Ludwig’s Elements of Botany. 3. “Bibliotheca scriptorum historic naturalis, oeconomisc, aliarumque artium ac scientiarum ad illam pertmentium, realis systematica,” ibid. 9 vols. 8vo, a very valuable bibliographical work, with references to the literary journals, &c. 4. “A history of plants used in arts and manufactures,” ibid. 1794, 8vo, in German. To these may be added a vast number of academical dissertations on botanical subjects. The Bcehmeria, a genus of the class Monrecia Tetrandria, was so named in honour of him, by Jacquin.

, a very celebrated German lawyer, was born in 1674 at Hanover. He became professor of law at Halle, and afterwards director of the university and in 1743 was appointed chancellor of the duchy of Magdeburgh, and chancellor in ordinary of the faculty oflaw. He died Aug. 11, 1749. His chief study was the canon law, but he was also equally distinguished for his knowledge of the civil law and in all his writings displays profound sense and learning. Among the most approved of his works, we may enumerate: 1 “Tractatus ecclesiasticus de jure parochiali,” Halle, 1701, 4to. 2. “Jus Ecclesiasticum Protestantium,” ibid. 1714, 5 vols. 4to and in 1737, a second edition, in 7 vols. 4to; a third in 1740, extended to 12 vols. 4to. 3. “Corpus juris canonici,” Halle, 1747, 2 vols. 4to. This, which is written in a spirit of moderation and candour, he dedicated to pope Benedict XIV. who received the compliment very graciously. He had two sons* John Samuel, and George Louis, both eminent lawyers, law-writers, and professors, a list of whose works may be seen in our authority. A third son, Philip Adolphus, born at Halle in 1717, and who died in 1789, was a physician, having been admitted doctor in medicine in 1736. As he applied his mind particularly to the study of midwifery, he gave for his inaugural thesis, “De precavenda polyporum generatione.” His next dissertation, which was published in 1741, in 4to, was “Situs uteri gravidi, ac foetus, ac sede placentae in utero.” In this he has given a critical examination of the midwifery forceps used in England, which he compares with and prefers to Leuret’s. These pieces were added by the author to his edition of sir Richard Manningham’s “Compendium artis Obstetricoe,” published in 1746, 4to. Having acquired celebrity by these and other works, he was adopted member of the Acad. Nat. Curios, and foreign associate of the royal academy of surgery at Paris. He was also appointed to succeed his father as professor of anatomy and medicine in the university at Hall. In 1749 he published “Institutiones Osteologicse, in usum prelectionum,” 8vo. Haller particularly commends in this work the engravings of the embryos, and some foetal skeletons. His “Observationum Anatomicarum fasciculus primus,” folio, was published in 1752. Among many rare and curious objects are, an engraving of a pregnant uterus, to shew the membrana decidua, and a foetus in one of the Fallopian tubes, with the placenta. The second collection, also in folio, published in 1756, contains a smaller foetus in one of the tubes, and a child with two bodies and only one head.

, an illustrious physician and professor at Leyden, born Dec. 31, 1668, at Voorhoot, a small village in Holland, about two miles from that city. His father intended him for divinity, and with this view initiated him in letters himself. About the twelfth year of his age, he was afflicted with an ulcer in his left thigh, which seemed to baffle the art of surgery, and occasioned such excessive pain, as much interrupted his studies for some time; but at length, by fomenting it with salt and wine, he effected a cure himself, and thereupon conceived his first thoughts of studying physic. In 1682, he was sent to the public school at Leyden, and at the expiration of the year got into the sixth and highest class, whence it is customary, after six months, to be removed to the university. At this juncture his father died, who left a wife and nine children, with a slender provision of whom Herman, though hut sixteen, was the eldest. Upon his admission into the university, he was particularly noticed by a friend of his father, Mr. Trigland, one of the professors of divinity, who procured him the patronage of Mr. Daniel Van Alphen, burgomaster of Leyden and by the advice of these gentlemen he attended Senguerd’s lectures on logic, the use of the globes, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and ethics he likewise attended the learned Jacob Gronovius on Greek and Latin authors, R kius on Latin classics, rhetoric, chronology, and geography, and Trigland and Scaafe on the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, in order to understand the sacred writings in their originals. In 1687, he applied to mathematics, and found the study so entertaining, that, after having gone through geometry and trigonometry, he proceeded to algebra, under Voider, in 1689. This year he gave a specimen of his learning in an academic oration, proving, “That the doctrine of Epicurus concerning the chief good was well understood by Cicero” and for this received the golden medal, which usually accompanies the merit of such probationary exercise. In 1690 he took a degree in philosophy. In his thesis on this occasion, with great strength of argument, he confuted the systems of Epicurus, Hobbes, and Spinosa. After having laid a solid foundation in all other parts of learning, he proceeded to divinity under the professors Trigland and Spanheim the first of whom gave lectures on Hebrew antiquities, the second on ecclesiastical history.

His progress in physic hitherto was without any assistance from lectures, except those mentioned in anatomy, and a few by professor Drelincourt on the theory; nor had he yet any thoughts of declining the priesthood: amidst mathematical, philosophical, anatomical, chemical and medical researches, he still earnestly pursued divinity. He went to the university of Harderwick in Guelderland, and in July 1693 was created there M. D. Upon his return to Leyden, he still persisted in his design of engaging in the ministry, but found an invincible obstruction to his intention. In a passage-boat where he happened to be, some discourse was accidentally started about the doctrine of Spinosa, as subversive of all religion and one of the passengers, who exerted himself most, opposing to this philosopher’s pretended mathematical demonstrations only the loud invective of a blind zeal, Boerhaave asked him calmly, “Whether he had ever read the works of the author he decried” The orator was at once struck dumb, and fired with silent resentment. Another passenger whispered the person next him, to learn Boerhaave’s name, and took it down in his pocket-book; and as soon as he arrived at Leyden, gave it out every where, that Boerhaave was become a Spinosist. Boerhaave, finding that such prejudices gained ground, thought it imprudent to risque the refusal of a licence for the pulpit, when he had so fair a prospect of rising by physic. He now therefore applied wholly to physic, and joined practice with reading. In 1701, he took the office of lecturer upon the institutes of physic and delivered an oration the 18th of May, the subject of which was a recommendation of the study of Hippocrates: apprehending that, either through indolence or arrogance, this founder of physic had been shamefully neglected by those whose authority was likely to have too great weight with the students of medicine. He officiated as a professor, with the title of lecturer only, till 1709, when the professorship of medicine and botany was conferred on him: his inaugural oration was upon the simplicity of true medical science, wherein, exploding the fallacies and ostentation of alchemistical and metaphysical writers, he reinstates medicine on the ancient foundation of observation and experiments. In a few years he enriched the physic-garden with such a number of plants, that it was found necessary to enlarge it to twice its original extent. In 1714, he arrived to the highest dignity in the university, the rectorship; and, at its expiration, delivered an oration on the method of obtaining certainty in physics. Here, having asserted our ignorance of the first principles of things, and that all our knowledge of their qualities is derived from experiments, he was thence led to reprehend many systems of the philosophers, and in particular that of Des Cartes, the idol of the times. This drew upon him the outrageous invectives of Mr. R. Andala, a Cartesian, professor of divinity and philosophy at Franeker, who sounded the alarm, that the church was in danger; and that the introduction of scepticism, and even Spinosism, must be the consequence of undermining the Cartesian system by such a professed ignorance of the principles of things his virulence was carried to such a degree, that the governors of the university thought themselves in honour obliged (notwithstanding Boernaave’s remonstrances to the contrary) to insist upon his retracting his aspersions. He accordingly made a recantation, with offers of further satisfaction to which Boerhaave generously replied, that the most agreeable satisfaction he could receive was, that so eminent a divine should have no more trouble on his account. In 1728, he was elected of the academy of sciences at Paris; and, in 1730, of the royal society of London. In 1718, he succeeded Le Mort in the professorship of chemistry and made an oration on this subject, “That chemistry was capable of clearing itself from its own errors.” August 1722, he was taken ill and confined to his bed for six months, with exquisite arthritic pains; he suffered another violent illness in 1727; and being threatened with a relapse in 1729, he found himself under the necessity of resigning the professorships of botany and chemistry. This gave occasion to an elegant oration, in which he recounts many fortunate incidents of his life, and returns his grateful acknowledgements to those who contributed thereto. Yet he was not less assiduous in his private labours till the year 1737, when a difficulty of breathing first seized him, and afterwards gradually increased. In a letter to baron Bassand, he writes thus of himself “An imposthumation of the lungs, which has daily increased for these last three months, almost suffocates me upon the least motion if it should continue to increase without breaking, I must sink under it; if it should break, the event is still' dubious happen what may, why should I be concerned since it cannot be but according to the will of the Supreme Being, what else should 1 desire God be praised In th mean time, I am not wanting in the use of the most approved remedies, in order to mitigate the disease, by promoting maturation, but am no ways anxious about the success of them I have lived to upwards of sixty-eight years, and always cheerful.” Finding also unusual pulsations of the artery in the right side of the neck, and intermissions of the pulse, he concluded there were polypous concretions between the heart and lungs, with a dilatation of the vessels. Sept. 8, 1738, he wrote his case to Dr. Mortimer, secretary of the royal society and for some days there were flattering hopes of his recovery but they soon vanished, and he died the 23d, aged almost seventy.

The following anecdotes respecting an important feature in Boerhaave’s character will not be read without interest “Fifty years are now elapsed,” says the learned baron Haller, “since I was the disciple of the immortal Boerhaave but his image is continually present to my mind. I have always before my eyes the venerable simplicity of that great man, who possessed in an eminent degree the power of persuasion. How often have I heard him say, when he spoke of the precepts of the Gospel, that the Divine Teacher of it had much more knowledge of the human heart than Socrates He particularly alluded to that sentence in the New Testament, * Whosoever looketh after a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart' for, added my illustrious master,” the first attacks of vice are always feeble reason has then some power over the mind. It is then in the very moment that such thoughts occur as have a tendency to withdraw us from our duty, that, if we with diligence suppress them, and turn our attention to something else, we may avoid the approaching danger, and not fail into the temptations of vice."

Boerhaave wrote in Latin a Commentary on his own Life, in which, in the third person, he takes notice of his opinions, of his studies, and of his pursuits. He there tells us, “that he was persuaded the Scriptures, as recorded in their originals, did iustrurt us in the way of sulvation, and afford tranquillity to the mind, when joined with obedience to Christ’s precepts and example.” He complains, however, that many of those who make the most unequivocal profession of our Saviour’s doctrine, pay too little deference to his example recommended in one of his precepts—“Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.”

“Linnæus, when at Ley den, had particularly wished to see and converse with Boerhaave, but in vain. No minister could be more overwhelmed with intreaties and invitations, nor more difficult in granting an au[ >nce, than Boerhaave. His menial servants reaped ad ant a ^es from this circumstance for them an audience was always a profitable money-job by the weignt of gold it could alone be accomplished. Without a douceur it was hard for anystranger or foreigner to gain admittance. Linnæus was quite unacquainted with this method, and had it not in his power to make presents. Owing to Boerhaave’s infinite occupations, and the strict regularity which he observed, ambassadors, princes, and Peter the Great himself, were obliged to wait several hours in his anti-chamber, to obtain an interview. How much more difficult must it have been for the young northern doctor, allowing him his usual spirit of liberality, to aspire at the honour of admittance. Notwithstanding all these obstacles, he obtained it at last. He sent Boerhaave a copy of his newpublished system. Eager to know the author of this work, who had likewise recommended himself by a letter, he appointed Linnæus to meet him on the day before his intended departure, at his villa, at the distance of a quarter of a league from Leyden, and charged Gronovius to give him notice of his intention. This villa contained a botanical garden, and one of the finest collections of exotics. Linnæus punctually attended to the invitation. Boerhaave, who was then sixty-seven years old, received him with gladness, and took him into his garden, for the purpose of judging of his knowledge. He shewed him, as a rarity, the Crategus Aria, and asked him if he had ever seen that tree before, as it had never been described by any botanist. Linnæus answered that he had frequently met with it in Sweden, and that it had been already described by Vaillant. Struck with the young man’s reply, Boerhaave denied the latter part of his assertion, with so much more confidence, as he had himself published Vaillant’s work, with notes of his own, and firmly believed that tree had not been described in it. To remove all doubts, and to give all possible sanction to what he advanced, Boerhaave immediately produced the work itself from his library, and to his extreme surprise, found the tree fully described in it, with all its distinctive marks. Admiring the exact and enlarged knowledge of Linnæus in botany, in which he seemed even to excel himself, the venerable old man advised him to remain in Holland, to make a fortune, which could not escape his talents. Linnoeus answered that he would fain follow this advice, but his indigence prevented him from staying any longer, and obliged him to set out next day for Amsterdam, on his return to Sweden; but nevertheless this visit to Boerhaave unexpectedly became the source of his fortune and of his eminence.”

, professor of medicine in the university of Petersburg, was born at the Hague in 1715. He was the son of James Kaan, and of Margaret, the daughter of Herman Boerhaave. After receiving a good classical education, he went to Leyden, where, applying to the study of medicine under the celebrated Albinus Gaubius, and other masters, he was admitted to the degree of doctor in 1738. He iiad before obtained an honorary medal from the university for his discourse “De gaudiis Alcheimstarum,” though he was more particularly attached to anatomy, which he cultivated with great success. The year following he took the name of Ins uncle Boerhaave. In 1740 he went to Petersburgh, where his talents soon procured him the situation of professor in medicine in the university there, and of one of the members of the imperial academy. By Portal and Blumenbach he is called archiater, or aulic counsellor, and first physician to the empress, confounding him with his brother Herman Kaan B. who about the same time enjoyed that honour. In the course of a severe and tedious illness, from which he with difficulty recovered, he lost his hearing. This happened 1749. He died in 1753. His works are: “Perspiratio dicta Hippocrati, per universum corpus anatomice illustrata,” Lugd. B. 1738, 12mo; in which he shews there is a constant inhalation or absorption, and an exhalation, or perspiration, carried on, not only on the surface of the body, but in all the principal cavities. “Impetum faciens dictum Hippocrati per corpus consentiens, philologice et physiologice illustratum,” Lugd. Bat. 1745, 12mo. la this he treats of the action of the mind upon the body, by the means of the nerves of the fabric and motion of the muscles on the effects of opium, given to a dog, &c. He also gave the anatomy of an elephant, which he had an opportunity of dissecting, and of two monstrous infants, &c.

, professor of theology at Leipsic, was born at Dresden, Nov. 6, 1685, studied at Leipsic and Wittemberg, and travelled afterwards in Holland and England. He died at Leipsic, Nov. 19, 17.53. He was a man of great learning, which he employed principally on subjects of biblical criticism and ecclesiastical history. His principal works are: 1. “De exulibus Grcecis iisdemque litterarum in Italia instauratoribus,” Leipsic, 1704, and enlarged 1750, 8vo. 2. “De ortu atque progressu Philosophise moralis,” ibid. 1707. 3. “De Socrate, singular! boni ethici exemplo,” ib. 1707. 4. “De Lutheri actis anno 1520,” ibid. 1720, 4to. 5. “De actis Lutheri anno 1531,” ibid. 1721, 4to. 6. “Institutiones theologiae symbolicse,” ib. 1751, 4to. 7. “Dissertationes sacrae,” ibid. 1752. The Journal des Savans for 1725 mentions a dissertation of his on the Lycaonians, in which he takes the part of those writers who deny that the language of that people was a dialect of the Greek. Boerner published, from 1728 to 1734, a complete edition of the works of Luther, in 22 vols. folio. He published also, in 1709, an edition of Le Long’s “Bibliotheca Sacra,” at Antwerp, 2 vols. 8vo, with corrections and additions. He had two sons, Christian Frederic, and Frederic, who were both physicians. The latter, who died in 1761, published the “Lives and writings of eminent physicians and naturalists,” in German, Wolfenbuttle, 1748 64, 3 vols. 8vo. Boerner was once possessed of a ms. of part of the New Testament, which is known by the name of the Codex Boerneriamis. It is noted G. in the second part of Wetstein’s New Testament, and was collated by Kuster, and described in the preface to his edition of Mill’s Greek Testament. It was published by professor Matthei, at Meissen, in Saxony, in 17ll, and is supposed to have been written between the eighth and twelfth centuries. It is preserved at present in the electoral library at Dresden, and a copy of it is in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, among the books and Mss. left by Dr. Bentley.

, the most learned and almost the only Latin philosopher of his time, descended from an ancient and noble family, inauy of his ancestors having been senators and consuls, was born at Rome in the year 455. Though deprived of his father the year he was born by the cruelty of Valeutinian III. who caused him to be put to death, his relations took all proper care of his education, and inspired him with an early taste for philosophy and the belles-lettres. They sent him afterwards to Athens, where he remained eighteen years, and made surprising progress in every branch of literature, particularly philosophy and mathematics, in which Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Ptolemy, were his favourite authors. During this course of education, he was not less distinguished for probity and humanity, than for genius and learning. On his return to Rome, he attracted the public attention, as one born to promote the happiness of society. The most eminent men in the city sought his friendship, foreseeing that his merit would soon advance him to the first employments of the state. His alliance, too, was consequently courted by many, but Elpis, descended from one of the most considerable families of Messina, was the lady on whom Boethius fixed his choice. This lady was learned, highly accomplished, and virtuous. She bore him two sons, Patricius and Hypatius. Boethius, as was expected, obtained the highest honour hiscountry could bestow. He was made consul in the year 487, at the age of thirty-two. Odoacer, king of the Heruli, reigned at that time in Italy, who, after having put to death Orestes, and deposed his son Augustulus, the last emperor of the West, assumed the title of king of that country. Two years after Boethius’s advancement to the dignity of consul, Theodoric, king of the Goths, invaded Italy and, having conquered Odoacer and put him to death, he in a short time made himself master of that country, and fixed the seat of his government at Ravenna, as Odoacer and several of the later western emperors had done before him. The Romans and the inhabitants of Italy were pleased with the government of Theodoric, because he wisely ruled them by the same laws, the same polity, and the same magistrates they were accustomed to under the emperors. In the eighth year of this prince’s reign, Boethius had the singular felicity of beholding his two sons, Patricius and Hypatius, raised to the consular dignity. During their continuance in office, Theodoric came to Rome, where he had been long expected, and was received by the senate and people with the greatest demonstrations of joy. Boethius made him an eloquent panegyric in the senate; which the king answered in the most obliging terms, declaring that he should ever have the greatest respect for that august assembly, and would never encroach upon any of their privileges.

The learning displayed in these works procured Boethius such reputation that he was frequently visited by persons of the first rank. Among these Gondebald, king of the Burgundians, who had married a daughter of Theodoric, came to Rome for the purpose of conversing with so eminent a philosopher. Boethius shewed him several curious mechanical works of his own invention, particularly two watches or time-keepers, one of which pointed out the sun’s di'irnal and annual motion in the ecliptic, upon a moveable sphere and the other indicated the hours of the day, by the expedient of water dropping out of one vessel into another: and so fond was Gondebald of these pieces of mechanism, that upon his return to his own country, be dispatched ambassadors to Theodoric, praying that he would procure for him the two wonderful time-keepers he had seen at Rome.

During the course of these transactions, Boethius lost his beloved wife Elpis, but married a second time Rusticiana, the daughter of Symmachus, and was elected consul with his father in law, in the thirtieth year of Theodoric’s reign and it was during this consulship that he fell under the displeasure of king Theodoric. Rich in health, affluence, domestic happiness, and the love of his fellow citizens, and the highest reputation, all these circumstances probably contributed in some degree to accelerate his ruin. King Theodoric, who had long held him in the highest esteem, was an Arian and Boethius, who was a catholic, published about this time a book upon the unity of the Trinity, in opposition to the three famous sects of Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians. This treatise was universally read, and created our author a great many enemies at court; who insinuated to the prince, that Boethius wanted not only to destroy Arianism, but to effectuate a change of government, and deliver Italy from the dominion of the Goths and that, from his great credit and influence, he was the most likely person to bring about such a revolution. Whilst his enemies were thus busied at Ravenna, they employed emissaries to sow the seeds of discontent at Rome, and to excite factious people openly to oppose him in the exercise of his office as consul. Boethius, in the mean while, wanting no other reward than a sense of his integrity, laboured both by his eloquence and his authority to defeat their wicked attempts and persisted resolutely in his endeavours to promote the public welfare, by supporting the oppressed, and bringing offenders to justice. But his integrity and steadiness tended only to hasten his fall. King Theodoric, corrupted probably by a long series of good fortune, began now to throw off the mask. Though an Arian, he had hitherto preserved sentiments of moderation and equity with regard to the catholics; but fearing, perhaps, that they had a view of overturning his government, he began now to treat them with seventy, and Boethius was one of the first, that fell a victim to his rigour. He had continued long in favour with his prince, and was more beloved by him than any other person but neither the remembrance of former affection, nor the absolute certainty the king had of his innocence, prevented him from prosecuting our philosopher, upon the evidence of three abandoned profligates, infamous for all manner of crimes. The offences laid to his charge, as we are informed in the first book of the Consolation of Philosophy, were, “That he wished to preserve the senate and its authority that he hindered an informer from producing proofs, which would have convicted that assembly oftreason and that he formed a scheme for the restoration of tha Roman liberty.” In proof of the last article, the above mentioned profligates produced letters forged by themselves, which they falsely averred were written by Boethius. For these supposed crimes, as we learn from the same authority, he was, unheard and undefended, at the distance of five hundred miles, proscribed and condemned to death. Theodoric, conscious that his severity would be universally blamed, did not at this time carry his sentence fully into execution but contented himself with confiscating Boethius’s effects, with banishing him to Pavia, and confining him to prison. Soon after this, Justin, the catholic emperor of the East, finding himself thoroughly established upon the throne, published an edict against the Arians, depriving them of all their churches. Theodoric was highly offended at this edict. He obliged pope John I. together with four of the principal senators of Rome (one of whom was Symmachus, father-in-law to Boethius), to go on an embassy to Constantinople and commanded them to threaten that he would abolish the catholic religion throughout Italy, if the emperor did not immediately revoke his edict against the Arians. John was received at Constantinople with extraordinary pomp, but being able to produce no effect as to the object of his embassy, on his return, Theodoric threw him and his colleagues into prison at Ravenna, and Boethius was ordered to be more strictly confined at Pavia. It was here that he wrote his five books of the “Consolation of Philosophy,” on which his fame chiefly rests. He had scarcely concluded his work, when pope John being famished to death in prison, and Symmachus and the other senators, put to death, Theodoric ordered Boethius to be beheaded in prison, which was accordingly executed Oct. 23, 526. His body was interred by the inhabitants of Pavia, in the church of St. Augustine, near to the steps of the chancel, where his monument was to be seen until the last century, when that church was destroyed.

His most celebrated production, his ethic composition “De Consolatione Philosophise,” has always been admired both for the style and sentiments. It is an imaginary conference between the author and philosophy personified, who endeavours to console and soothe him in his afflictions. The topics of consolation contained in this work, are deduced from the tenets of Plato, Zeno, and Aristotle, but without any notice of the sources of consolation which are peculiar to the Christian system, which have led many to think him more of a Stoic than a Christian. It is partly in prose, and partly in verse; and was translated into Saxon by king Alfred, and illustrated with a commentary by Asser, bishop of St. David’s and into English, by Chaucer artel queen Elizabeth. It was also translated into English verse by John Walton, in 1410, of which translation there is a correct manuscript on parchment in the British Museum. Few books have been more popular, especially in the middle ages, or have passed through a greater number of editions in almost all languages. It has been observed by Mr. Harris, in his “Hermes,” that “with Boethius the Latin tongue, and the last remains of Roman dignity, may be said to have sunk in the western world.” To the same purpose, Gibbon says, “that the senator Boethius is the last of the Romans whom Cato or Tully would have acknowledged for their countryman.”

, a celebrated Scotch historian, was born at Dundee, in the shire of Angus, about 1470. After having studied at Dundee and Aberdeen, he was sent to the university of Paris, where he applied to philosophy, and became a professor of it there. There also he contracted an acquaintance with several eminent persons, particularly with Erasmus, who kept a correspondence with him afterwards. Elphinston, bishop of Aberdeen, having founded the king’s college in that city about 1500, sent for Boeis from Paris, and appointed him principal. He took for his colleague Mr. William Hay, and by their joint labour the kingdom was furnished with several eminent scholars. Upon the death of his patron, he undertook to write his life, and those of his predecessors in that see. The work is in Latin, and entitled “Vitae Episcoporum Murthlacensium et Aberdonensium,” Paris, 1522, 4tol He begins at Beanus, the first bishop, and ends at Gawin Dunbar, who was bishop when the book xyas published. A third part of the work is spent in the life of Elphinston, for whose sake it was undertaken. He next undertook to write in the same language the history of Scotland the first edition of which was printed at Paris by Badius Ascenslus in 152G, which consisted of seventeen books, and ended with the death of James I. but the next in 1574 was much enlarged, having the addition of the 18th book and part of the 19th the work was afterwards brought down to the reign of James III. by Ferrerius, a Piedmontese. It was translated by Bellenclen. (See Bellenden, John). Mackenzie observes, that of all Scots historians, next to Buchanan, Boethins has been the most censured and commended by the learned men who have mentioned him. Nicolson tells us, that in the first six books there are a great many particulars not to be found in Fordun or any other writer now extant and that, “unless the authors which he pretends to have seen be hereafter discovered, he will continue to be shrewdly suspected for the contriver of almost as many tales as Jeoffrey of Momnouth.” His 18th book, however, is highly commended by Ferrerius, who says, “that he has treated of things there in so comprehensive a manner, that he believes no one could have done it more fully or significantly on the same subject.” His stylo, says another writer, has all the purity of Caesar’s, and is so nervous both in the reflections and diction, that he seems to have absolutely entered into the spirit of Livy, and made it his own. Erasmus, who was intimately acquainted with him, says, in one of his epistles, “that he was a man of an extraordinary happy genius, and of great eloquence.” “He was certainly,” says another writer, “a great master of polite learning, well skilled in divinity, philosophy, and history; but somewhat credulous, and much addicted to the be-> lief of legendary stories. With regard to his other accomplishments, he was discreet, well-bred, attentive, generous, affable, and courteous.“Dr. Johnson in his Tour in Scotland observes that Hector Boethius may be” justly reverenced as one of the revivers of elegant learning. The style of Boethins, though, perhaps, not always rigorously pure, is formed with great diligence upon ancient models, and wholly uninfected with monastic barbarity. His history is written with elegance and vigour, but his fabulousness and credulity are justly blamed. His fabulousness, if he was the author of the fictions, is a fault for which no apology can be made; but his credulity may be excused in an age when all men were credulous. Learning was then rising on the world; but ages, so long accustomed to darkness, were too much dazzled with its light to see any thing distinctly. The first race of scholars, in the fifteenth century, and some time after, were, for the most part, learning to speak, rather than to think, and were therefore more studious of elegance than of truth. The contemporaries of Boethius thought it sufficient to know what the ancients had delivered. The examination of tenets and of facts was reserved for another generation.”

, a celebrated French architect, was the son of a sculptor, and of a sister of the famous Quinault, and born at Nantes in Bretagne, May 7, 1667. He was trained under Harduin Mansard, who trusted him with conducting his greatest works. Boffrand was admitted into the French academy of architecture in 1709: many princes of Germany chose him for their architect, and raised considerable edifices upon his plans. His manner of building approached that of Palladio and there was much of grandeur in all his designs. As engineer and inspectorgeneral of the bridges and highways, he caused to be constructed a number of canals, sluices, bridges, and other mechanical works. There is of this illustrious architect a curious and useful, book, which contains the general principles of his art to which is added an account of the plans, profiles, and elevations of the principal works which he executed in France and other countries, entitled “Livre d' Architecture, &c.” fol. 1745, with seventy plates. He published also an account of the casting the bronze figure of Louis XIV. “Description de ce qui a etc” pratique pour fondre en bronze, &c." 1743, fol. with plates. In his private character, Boffrand is represented as of a noble and disinterested spirit, and of a pleasing and agreeable manner. He died at Paris, March Is, 1754, dean of the academy of architecture, first engineer and inspectorgeneral of the bridges and highways, architect and administrator of the general hospital.

, a learned and pious writer of the seventeenth century, was the son of William Bogan, gentleman, and born at Little Hempston in Devonshire, about the feast of St. John the Baptist in the year 1625. He became a commoner of St. Alban hall under the tuition of Mr. Ralph Button in Michaelmas term in 1640. He was admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi college November the 26th the year following, and left the university when the city of Oxford was garrisoned for the king, and returned after the surrender of it to the parliament. October 21, 1646, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and was elected probationer fellow of his college the year following. November 19, 1650, he took the degree of master of arts, and became a retired and religious student, and distinguished in the university for his admirable skill in the tongues. At last, having contracted an ill habit of body by his intense application to his studies, he died September 1, 1659, and was interred in the middle of the north cloister belonging to Corpus Christi college, joining to the south side of the chapel there. “At that time and before,” Wood informs us, “the nation being very unsettled, and the university expecting nothing but ruin and dissolution, it pleased Mr. Began to give by his will to the city of Oxford five hundred pounds; whereas hud the nation been otherwise, he would have given that money to his college.” An original picture of him is to be seen in the guild-hall of the city of Oxford. Mr. Wood adds, that he was an excellent tutor, but a zealous puritan and in his Hist. & Antiq. Univers. Oxon. he gives him the character of vir studiosus et lingiiarum peritissimus, a studious person, and well skilled in the languages, in which opinion some learned foreigners who have read his works concur. He wrote, 1. Additions, in four books, to Francis Rous’s “Archaeologioc Atticae,” the fifth edition of which was published at Oxford, 1658, 4to. These additions relate to the customs of the ancient Greeks in marriages, burials, feasts, &c. at the close of which, Mr. Bogan, with great simplicity of manner, gives his reasons for undertaking the work: “The cords,” he says, “which drew me to do it (and drawn I was) were three, such as, twisted together, I could by no means break; viz. l.The importunity of my friend. 2. The necessity of the knowledge of ancient rites and customs for the understanding of authors. And, 3. the hopes which I had by employment (as by an issue) to divert my humour of melancholy another way. The causes why I did it no better are as many, viz. 1. Want of years and judgment, having done the most part of it in my Tyrocinium (when I took more delight in these studies) us appears by the number of the authors which I have cited. 2. Want of health. And, 3. want of time and leisure, being called away by occasions that might not be neglected, and by friends that could not be disobeyed. If yet I have given but little light, and my labour and oil be not all lost, I have as much as I desired myself, and thou hast no more than I owed thee.” 2. “A view of the Threats and Punishments recorded in Scripture alphabetically composed, with some brief observations on sundry texts,” Oxford, 1653, 8vo. 3. “Meditations of the mirth of a Christian Life,” Oxford, 165:3, 8vo. 4. “Help to Prayer both extempore and by a set form as also to Meditation,” &c. Oxford, 1660, 12mo, published after the author’s death by Daniel Agas, fellow of Corpus Christi college. Our author also wrote a large and learned epistle to Mr. Edmund Dickenson, M. A. of Merlon college, prefixed to that gentleman’s book, emitled “Delphi Phcenicizantes, &c.” published at Oxford, 1655, in 8vo. And “Homerus Æfipo/Jw sive comparatio Homeri cum scriptoribus sacris quoad Normam loquendi.” In the preface he declares that it is not his intention to make any comparison between the sacred writers and their opinions and Homer, but only of their idioms and ways of speaking. To this book is added Hesiodus 'Opi^wv; wherein he shews how Hesiod expresses himself very much after the same manner %vith Homer, Oxford, 1658, 8vo. He designed likewise to publish a discourse concerning the Greek particles but he was prevented by sickness from completing it; and another treatise concerning the best use of the Greek and Latin poets. Freytag has bestowed an article on his treatise on Homer’s style.

, a favoured pupil of T. Bartholine, and strenuous defender of his fame and opinions, was born at Dresden, about the year 1630. After visiting France, England, and other parts of Europe, to improve himself in knowledge, he took the degree of doctor in medicine at Basle in Swisserland, in 1652, and at the end of four or five years, passed principally with Bartholine, to whom he was strongly attached, he settled at Bern. His works are principally controversial, defending the priority of the discovery of the lymphatics by Bartholine, against Rudbeck the Swede, who claimed it and ivho, if he did not discover them, Haller says, has the merit of having more fully and accurately described them than- Bartholine had done. Bogden, in this contest, displayed much learning, but equal roughness and ill-humour. The titles of his works are, “liudbekii insidise structae vasis lymphaticis Thomas Bartholini,” 4to, and “Apologia pro vasis lymphaticis Bartholini, adversus insidias secundo structas ab Olao Rudbek.” Haffnice, 1654, 12mo. “Simeonis Seth, tie alimentorum facultatibus,” Gr. and Lat. 1658, 8vo. “Observationes Meclicae ad Thomam Bath.” The observations, twelve in number, are published in the “Culter Anatomicus” of Lyser Copenh. 1665.

, or Boha-Eddyn, an Arabian historian of great note, born March 1145, was celebrated for his Life of Saladin, in whose court he flourished in the twelfth century. What makes his history particularly valuable, is his being contemporary to the events he writes and his being also a favourite of Saladin’s, constantly about his person, and high in office. He is very accurate in his account of the crusades, and Saladin’s taking of Jerusalem and mentions our Richard I. who made such a figure as Saladin’s antagonist. The accurate Schultens has published a very excellent edition in folio, with much erudition, Leyden, 1732 the same was published in 1755, but only with a new title of that date. It has been observed by an able critic, that this historian, Abulpharagius, and Abulfeda, bear much resemblance to Plutarch; as they have enriched their histories with so many striking anecdotes and curious information on the progress and state of literature in their respective ages and countries.

, a voluminous political and miscellaneous writer of the seventeenth century, was born at Ringsfield, in Suffolk, the only son of Baxter Bohun, who with his ancestors, had been lords of the manor of Westhall, in that county, from the 25th Henry VIII. In 1663, he was admitted fellow-commoner of Queen’s college, Cambridge, and continued there till the latter end of 1666, when the plague obliged him and others to leave the university. In 1675 he was made a justice of peace for Suffolk, and continued in that office till the second of James II. when he was discharged, but was restored to that office in the first of William and Mary. The time of his death is not mentioned, but he was alive in 1700. He wrote, 1. “An Address to the Freemen and Freeholders of the nation, in three parts, being the history of three sessions of parliament in 1678, 1682,and 1683,” 4to. 2. “A Defence of the Declaration of king Charles II. against a pamphlet styled, A just and modest Vindication of the proceedings of the two last Parliaments.” This was printed with and added to the Address. 3. “A Defence of Sir Robert Filmer, against the mistakes and representations of Algernon Sydney, esq. in a paper delivered by him to the sheriffs upon the scaffold on Tower-hill, on Friday, Dec. 7, 1683, before his execution there,” Lond. 1684. 4. “The Justice of Peace’s Calling, a moral essay,” Lond. 1684, 8vo. 5. “A Preface and Conclusion to Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha,” ibid. 1685, 8vo. 6. “A Geographical Dictionary,” ibid. 1688, 8vo. 7. “The History of the Desertion; or an account of all the public affairs of England, from the beginning of Sept. 1688 to Feb. 12 following,” ibid. 1689, 8vo. 8. “An Answer to a piece called The Desertion discussed (by Jeremy Collier),” printed at the end of the “History of the Desertion.” 9. “The Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance no way concerned in the controversies now depending between the Williamites and the Jacobites,” ibid. 1689, 4to. In page 24th is a passage respecting bishop Ken, which Mr. Bohun found to be untrue, and therefore requests that it may be cancelled. 10. “The Life of John Jewell, bishop of Salisbury,” prefixed to a translation of his Apology, 1685. 11. “Three Charges delivered at the general quarter sessions holden at Ipswich, for the county of Suffolk, in 1691, 1692, and 1693,” 4to. 12. “The great Historical, Geographical, and Poetical Dictionary,” Lond. 1694, fol. He also translated Sicurus’ origin of Atheism the Universal Bibliotheque, or account of books for Jan. Feb. and March 1687 Sleidan’s History of the Reformation Puffendorff’s Present State of Germany, and Degory Wheare’s Method of reading History, Lond. 1698, 8vo.

, count of Scandiano, an Italian poet, was born at the castle of Scandiano, near Reggio in Lombardy, about the year 1434. He studied at the university of Ferrara, and remained in that city the greater part of his life, attached to the ducal court. He was particularly in great favour with the duke Borso and Hercules I. his successor. He accompanied Borso in a journey to Rome in 1471, and the year following was selected by Hercules to escort to Ferrara, Eleonora of Aragon, his future duchess. In 1481 he was appointed governor of Reggio, and was also captain-general of Modena. He died at Reggio, Dec. 20, 1494. He was one of the most learned and accomplished men of his time, a very distinguished Greek and Latin scholar, and at a time when Italian poetry was in credit, one of those poets who added to the reputation of his age and country. He translated Herodotus from the Greek into Italian, and Apuleius from the Latin. He wrote also Latin poetry, as his “Carmen Bucolicum,” eight eclogues in hexameters, dedicated to duke Hercules I. Reggio, 1500, 4 to Venice, 1528; and in Italian, “Sonetti e Canzoni,” Reggio, 1499, 4to; Tenice, 1501, 4to, in a style rather easy than elegant, and occasionally betraying the author’s learning, but without affectation. Hercules of Este was the first of the Italian sovereigns who entertained the court with a magnificent theatre on which Greek or Latin comedies, translated into Italian, were performed. For this theatre Boiardo wrote his “Timon,” taken from a dialogue of Lucian, which may be accounted the first comedy written in Italian. The first edition of it, according to Tiraboschi, was that printed at Scandiano, 1500, 4to. The one, without a date, in 8vo, he thinks was the second. It was afterwards reprinted at Venice, 1504, 1515, and 1517, 8vo. But Boiardo is principally known by his epic romance of “Orlando Innamorato,” of which the celebrated poem of Ariosto is not only an imitation, but a continuation. Of this work, he did not live to complete the third book, nor is it probable that any part of it had the advantage of his last corrections, yet it is justly regarded as exhibiting, upon the whole, a warmth of imagination, and a vivacity of colouring, which rendered it highly interesting: nor is it, perhaps, without reason, that the simplicity of the original has occasioned it to be preferred to the same work, as altered or reformed by Francesco Berni (See Brrni). The “Orlando Innamorato” was first printed at Scandiano, about the year 1495, and afterwards at Venice, 1500, which De Bure erroneously calls the first edition. From the third book where Boiardo 1 s labours cease, it was continued by Niccolo Agostini, and of this joint production numerous editions have been published.

, an eminent French poet, usually called by his countrymen Despreaux, was born on November 1, 1636. His parents were Gilles Boileau, register of the great chamber, and Ann de Nielle, his second wife; but it is uncertain whether he was born at Paris or Crone. In his early years, he was the reverse of those infantine prodigies who often in mature age scarcely attain to mediocrity; on the contrary, he was heavy and taciturn; nor was his taciturnity of that observing kind which denotes sly mischief at the bottom, but the downright barren taciturnity of insipid good-nature. His father, on comparing him with his other children, used to say, “as for this, he is a good-tempered fellow, who will never speak ill of any one.” In his infancy, however, he ap“pears to have been of a very tender constitution, and is said to have undergone the operation for the stone at the age of eight. Through compliance with the wishes of his family, he commenced with being a counsellor; but the tlryness of the Code and Digest soon disgusted him with this profession, which, his eulogist thinks, was a loss to the bar. When M. Dongois, his brother-in-law, register of parliament, took him to his house in order to form him to the style of business, he had a decree to draw up in an important cause, which he composed with enthusiasm, while he dictated it to Boileau with an emphasis which shewed how much he was satisfied with the sublimity of his work; but when he had finished, he perceived that Boileau was fallen asleep, after having written but few words. Transported with anger, he sent him back to his father, assuring him he” would be nothing but a blockhead all the rest of his life." After this he began to study scholastic divinity, which was still less suited to his taste, and at length he became what he himself wished to be a Poet; and, as if to belie, at setting out, his father’s prediction, he commenced at the age of thirty, with satire, which let loose against him the crowd of writers whom he